Rich Eisen just asked about my scenario

[Gzus]

That would take huge nads and/or little brains.

One Name: Bill Belichick

 

[WoodysGirl]

I hope someone in the league office has remembered to set a restore point.

Otherwise, whoever follows Goodell is going to have one heck of a time undoing all of the garbage that happened under Goodell's watch.

Why does Goodell get credit or heat for this? The Competition Committee presented this to the owners and the owners voted for it.

While Goodell may have an opinion on it, he didn't have a vote on it.

"We had a full discussion yesterday morning with the coaches in the room," Goodell said. "We had a full debate and the owners heard it. It's probably no secret that there are certain owners who have different feelings than the coaches . . . This might not come as a news flash, but the owners have the vote."

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Why does Goodell get credit or heat for this? The Competition Committee presented this to the owners and the owners voted for it.

While Goodell may have an opinion on it, he didn't have a vote on it.

He may not have a vote, but he has a lot of influence.

I doubt it's sheer coincidence that it seems we've had more changes in three years of Goodell than we had in years of Tagliabue.

 

[Eldorado]

Not to harm your obviously fragile ego, why the **** would anyone do that? Yeah, let's give them the ball in great field position for the small chance that we recover the onside kick. Compare the percentages of drives resulting in no points with successful onside kicks and you have your answer: "who the hell needs a rule".

It's not against the law to propose to your wife dressed like a superhero while singing the pokemon theme song, you just don't do it.

 

[cowboyeric8]

74% of the time both teams touch the ball anyway. So the new overtime doesn't change a whole lot.

Sure the team winning the toss wins 60% of the time but that is usually after both teams have touched the ball. And in new overtime if the team who recieved the opening kick off doesn't score a touchdown it will still go down to sudden death after that.

Also, say you lose the coin toss. You decide might as well onside, if you get it and score the other team will have never touched the ball. Is this true?

 

[DallasEast]

Due to the new rule, I have no problem with any onside kick scenario. Before the rule, there would be zero opportunity for the receiving team (which is already down by a field goal) to recover an onside kick since the game would already be over. Now there is. Any opportunity, no matter how slight, will always greater/better than none at all.

 

[WoodysGirl]

He may not have a vote, but he has a lot of influence.

I doubt it's sheer coincidence that it seems we've had more changes in three years of Goodell than we had in years of Tagliabue.

It's no secret that he supported the proposal, but he didn't create the proposal. The Competition Committee did.

I don't doubt that he has a lot of influence, but ultimately the Owners still have to vote on it.

As for all the changes that's been made during his tenure, it's becoming more and more obvious that Tags was simply biding his time the last few years as the HMIC. I remember after his last extension where he told the owners that he wasn't going to work for ever. And even though he's not the head man, he's still on the league payroll and getting paid $3 mil to work as a consultant.

 

[peplaw06]

74% of the time both teams touch the ball anyway. So the new overtime doesn't change a whole lot.

Sure the team winning the toss wins 60% of the time but that is usually after both teams have touched the ball. And in new overtime if the team who recieved the opening kick off doesn't score a touchdown it will still go down to sudden death after that.

Also, say you lose the coin toss. You decide might as well onside, if you get it and score the other team will have never touched the ball. Is this true?

While true, I doubt anyone would ever do that. Remember, if the receiving team recovers the kick, they only have to travel 40 yards to win the game. 3 first downs and they're at goal to go. Plus, you have to think that if a team gets within the 20 yard line, the odds they go for it on 4th down to score the TD and put the game away go up.

There is no second possession if they score a TD. I like my odds of holding them to a FG or less much better kicking it deep than giving them the ball with great field position.

 

[fannypack]

My favorite part of you showing this video.

He's at the Saints 31 yard line when he snaps the ball.

Your point means nothing.

They could have kicked it onside, not recovered and that play still could have happened.

So what did you really lose by taking the chance in ending the game on one play?

Another point to be made.

He's already at the 31. If they were only down 3 they would be running to just make sure they first get into range to make sure the tie is already locked down.

They were down 7 points.

Considering it's a difference of field position of about 25-30 yards my point does mean something. It's very likely that play doesn't get called. So my point means about as much as yours does, both being hypothetical.

 

[TheCount]

If you kick a FG and have the balls to onside it knowing the circumstances, more power to you.

Do a lot of players get concussions during onside kicks? I wasn't aware of that.

 

[cowboyeric8]

While true, I doubt anyone would ever do that. Remember, if the receiving team recovers the kick, they only have to travel 40 yards to win the game. 3 first downs and they're at goal to go. Plus, you have to think that if a team gets within the 20 yard line, the odds they go for it on 4th down to score the TD and put the game away go up.

There is no second possession if they score a TD. I like my odds of holding them to a FG or less much better kicking it deep than giving them the ball with great field position.

Very true. I was just going over things in my head.

I just think all this talk about overtime is silly, 74% of the time both teams touch the ball. The only thing this new overtime solves is team who wins the toss winning the game by a field goal on their opening possesion. So everybody crying about the other team not touching the ball is still a huge possibility if they score a touchdown

 

[jterrell]

If it's true that a team can kick an on-side kick on the opening kickoff of overtime, recover the ball, and then kick a field goal to win (as Chris Mortenson explained), then every team should open overtime with an on-side kick. Even if they give up a FG, they'll still have their opportunity to score.

Absolutely not.

In the NFL you don't give up 30 yards of field position with the game on the line. On sides kicks are recovered right at 13% of the time in the NFL, though 55% on surprise attempts. Guess what? No surprise in an OT scenario.

If you flub an on sides kick then the other team is basically guaranteed a field goal and you have to then gain around a net 40 yards just to tie. That's simply bad football coaching.

But that's just in the case of an offense failing to convert a TD with a short field, something that is far too common to risk any 13% chance of success on.

So the long and short of it is 13% of the time you recover and have a SHOT to win. Say you win 12% of the time. That leaves 87% of the time the other team has a short field. I guarantee you they score TDs more than 13% of the time.

Bad odds, man, bad odds.

 

[Chuck 54]

The only thing definite about this scenerio is that if a coach with a 3 point lead in overtime tries an onside kick from his own 30, he needs to have his head examined and can't be trusted to run a football team, whether he gets lucky with the decision or not.

 

[burmafrd]

This is also going to lead to more coaches playing it conservative late in a tie game knowing that they have a good shot at getting the ball at least once in OT.

 

[Hoofbite]

He may not have a vote, but he has a lot of influence.

I doubt it's sheer coincidence that it seems we've had more changes in three years of Goodell than we had in years of Tagliabue.

Maybe Tagliabue was the problem?

Clearly the changes being made are heavily supported. Maybe nothing changed with Tags because he would promptly shut anything down. Doesn't he have to sign off on the deal?

 

[KJJ]

It's a fair point, but all you're really doing is pushing those finishes back to the end of the OT period. At some point in the game, there's a final score to win it all before time runs out. The only thing you'd miss out on is the unnecessary stoppage of play, the drama of the coin toss, and the wailing about how the overtime rules are unfair from fans of the losing team.

There's alot of ways you could look at it but I feel the 4th quarter should be the final official quarter and anything after should involve a coin flip and sudden death. This forces teams to try and end the game in regulation when they're driving and have the opportunity. Giving a team an extra quarter with basically unlimited time to finish what they had going in regulation as was suggested by the other poster would take away from the game. It's when a team is pressed for time that some of the most dramatic plays occur.

 

[theogt]

Absolutely not.

In the NFL you don't give up 30 yards of field position with the game on the line. On sides kicks are recovered right at 13% of the time in the NFL, though 55% on surprise attempts. Guess what? No surprise in an OT scenario.

If you flub an on sides kick then the other team is basically guaranteed a field goal and you have to then gain around a net 40 yards just to tie. That's simply bad football coaching.

But that's just in the case of an offense failing to convert a TD with a short field, something that is far too common to risk any 13% chance of success on.

So the long and short of it is 13% of the time you recover and have a SHOT to win. Say you win 12% of the time. That leaves 87% of the time the other team has a short field. I guarantee you they score TDs more than 13% of the time.

Bad odds, man, bad odds.

Your numbers are wrong.

 

[bsheeern]

I think he did. I posted it and within 15-20 minutes he was on NFLN.

Now 872 other people could have posted it also, but a boy can dream that Rich Eisen is my BFF for a few minutes.

:laugh1:

Lol highly doubt they are sitting over at nfln 15-20 prior to air time going " what should we talk about today? Hey I know, go check your Twitter and see if we can come up with something real quick like"

 

[Idgit]

There's alot of ways you could look at it but I feel the 4th quarter should be the final official quarter and anything after should involve a coin flip and sudden death. This forces teams to try and end the game in regulation when they're driving and have the opportunity. Giving a team an extra quarter with basically unlimited time to finish what they had going in regulation as was suggested by the other poster would take away from the game. It's when a team is pressed for time that some of the most dramatic plays occur.

The team with the ball last in the 4th quarter still has plenty of incentive to score at the end of regulation, since it avoids the 5th quarter where the other team has enough time to beat you. The end of the fourth still represents a sudden death situation. Right? So teams will take advantage of that if they can get in a knock-out punch to avoid the uncertainty of an extra period.

 

[KJJ]

The team with the ball last in the 4th quarter still has plenty of incentive to score at the end of regulation, since it avoids the 5th quarter where the other team has enough time to beat you. The end of the fourth still represents a sudden death situation. Right? So teams will take advantage of that if they can get in a knock-out punch to avoid the uncertainty of an extra period.

The end of the 4th quarter only represents sudden death if a team takes the lead as the clock expires. What exactly is your position on OT?