NFL GDT: 2021 AFC Divisional Round: (2) Kansas City Chiefs vs (3) Buffalo Bills

[Spring in Fialta]

Sorry, the OT rules are fine, even if not completely fair. You want fair rules? Win in regulation.

These kind of statements always get a chuckle out of me. Very assertive. Yet couldn't you say the same about the winning team in OT?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

These kind of statements always get a chuckle out of me. Very assertive. Yet couldn't you say the same about the winning team in OT?

Last time I checked the winning team doesn't cry about the rules being unfair in OT.

Crying about OT rules is like crying about the refs "screwing you"...it's just an excuse instead of admitting you weren't good enough

 

[EpochLink]

 

[John Price]

 

[John Price]

And their coach not pooch kicking the kickoff with 13 seconds left. That would have wasted at least 3-4 seconds and maybe 6+ seconds. At that point they don't have time for two plays and a field goal.

Just no defense for not doing it.

if they just hold on for 13 seconds they win

but they gave up so much in those 13 seconds

usually that is a WIN

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Last time I checked the winning team doesn't cry about the rules being unfair in OT.

Crying about OT rules is like crying about the refs "screwing you"...it's just an excuse instead of admitting you weren't good enough

I genuinely don't understand. How can rules be fine if they're not fair? And how is it the same as crying about the refs? I don't see that at all.

'I think it sucks that Buffalo doesn't get a chance to touch the ball' does not equal 'They got screwed.'

They didn't. No one is saying they did. Just that the rule sucks. That's why the 'Just win in regulation' quip rings really hollow. The winning team didn't do that either.

 

[DangleCity]

I genuinely don't understand. How can rules be fine if they're not fair? And how is it the same as crying about the refs? I don't see that at all.

'I think it sucks that Buffalo doesn't get a chance to touch the ball' does not equal 'They got screwed.'

They didn't. No one is saying they did. Just that the rule sucks. That's why the 'Just win in regulation' quip rings really hollow. The winning team didn't do that either.

They had a chance to get the ball in OT. They couldn't stop the Chiefs

 

[Spring in Fialta]

They had a chance to get the ball in OT. They couldn't stop the Chiefs

Sure. But exactly how would just playing the extra quarter/having a possession not improve the game?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Sure. But exactly how would just playing the extra quarter/having a possession not improve the game?

Because the point of OT is to determine a winner as quick as possible.

Why does NHL overtime end on a goal instead of finishing the period? It's the same thing

 

[DangleCity]

Because the point of OT is to determine a winner as quick as possible.

Why does NHL overtime end on a goal instead of finishing the period? It's the same thing

Exactly. The rules are to determine a winner as quick as possible. Playing an extra quarter for every OT game is ridiculous and not feasible over an 18 week season plus playoffs

 

[kingsholygrail]

Exactly. The rules are to determine a winner as quick as possible. Playing an extra quarter for every OT game is ridiculous and not feasible over an 18 week season plus playoffs

Not to mention if they're tied AGAIN at the end of the extra quarter, do they do another full quarter?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Because the point of OT is to determine a winner as quick as possible.

Why does NHL overtime end on a goal instead of finishing the period? It's the same thing

Comparing a posession in Hockey to Football is absurd. If finishing as quick as possible was the point why not let the FG be sufficient?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Not to mention if they're tied AGAIN at the end of the extra quarter, do they do another full quarter?

Then you can start thinking about tightening the rules? Or even then, I'm probably more for just giving the opposing team one chance with the ball.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Then you can start thinking about tightening the rules? Or even then, I'm probably more for just giving the opposing team one chance with the ball.

How about stopping your opponent from scoring.

 

[DangleCity]

Comparing a posession in Hockey to Football is absurd. If finishing as quick as possible was the point why not let the FG be sufficient?

Because the way the rules are now, it gives the team who loses the coin toss a more even playing field, while still keeping the sudden death aspect of OT.

 

[StreetHawk]

Because the way the rules are now, it gives the team who loses the coin toss a more even playing field, while still keeping the sudden death aspect of OT.

If the chargers won the toss vs the raiders I don’t think the raiders were going to stop them. Came off a 19 play game tying TD drive to close regulation. To go back out there to start OT, they would likely be toast. That means no pass rush and rhe CBs would be dead tired running with the WR.

 

[keonsbitterness]

And their coach not pooch kicking the kickoff with 13 seconds left. That would have wasted at least 3-4 seconds and maybe 6+ seconds. At that point they don't have time for two plays and a field goal.

Just no defense for not doing it.

The defense is the Bills opted for the sure thing on the kickoff. A squib kick could kill a few seconds, but it could also take a crazy bounce out of bounds leading to KC possession at the 40, or get returned for huge yardage, or KC could give themselves up by falling on the squib kick losing little or no time with potentially better field position than the 25.

What the Bills needed to do was get one halfway-positive result on D such as an incompletion or a short completion. If that happened, they would have won barring a miracle.

 

[DangleCity]

The defense is the Bills opted for the sure thing on the kickoff. A squib kick could kill a few seconds, but it could also take a crazy bounce out of bounds leading to KC possession at the 40, or get returned for huge yardage, or KC could give themselves up by falling on the squib kick losing little or no time with potentially better field position than the 25.

What the Bills needed to do was get one halfway-positive result on D such as an incompletion or a short completion. If that happened, they would have won barring a miracle.

Agreed. You have the best defense in the league. I'm not taking my chances with something crazy happening on the kickoff. It was 13 effing seconds.

Too much is being made of the decision to kickoff for a touchback

 

[StreetHawk]

Agreed. You have the best defense in the league. I'm not taking my chances with something crazy happening on the kickoff. It was 13 effing seconds.

Too much is being made of the decision to kickoff for a touchback

Romo should know better than anyone that there is no gimme when it comes to special teams.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

How about stopping your opponent from scoring.

This is really simplistic. Can't we ask the same of the Chiefs following their TD?

This refusal to consider giving the ball back even once is really perplexing.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Because the way the rules are now, it gives the team who loses the coin toss a more even playing field, while still keeping the sudden death aspect of OT.

But they didn't stop their opponent. Don't they deserve to lose by your logic? Why not give a perfectly even playing field?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The idea of sudden death in a sport like football is essentially moronic.

 

[dahrougem2]

The defense is the Bills opted for the sure thing on the kickoff. A squib kick could kill a few seconds, but it could also take a crazy bounce out of bounds leading to KC possession at the 40, or get returned for huge yardage, or KC could give themselves up by falling on the squib kick losing little or no time with potentially better field position than the 25.

What the Bills needed to do was get one halfway-positive result on D such as an incompletion or a short completion. If that happened, they would have won barring a miracle.

Even if he doesn't squib kick it, he could have kicked off normally with a bit less power behind the kick and kept it in the field of play.

Of course there's risk to everything but keeping that ball in play arguably presented the least risk for the rest of the game.

No excuse allowing them to get downfield the way they did, though. Bills were playing defense like KC had no timeouts and needed a TD with how deep their safeties were. Whoever was calling those plays should be getting grilled by management today.

 

[StreetHawk]

KC had 2 main targets.
Hill is the speedster that they either try to give it to him coming across the middle and allow him to use his speed to get upfield.
Or they send him deep with Mahomes arm strength.

Kelce is the big target.

rush 3 and Double those 2 leaving 4 defenders on the other 3 options. I get leaving space on Hill because if you end up behind him you are done.

Kelce, should have pressed on him. Too easy a pass.

 

[Emperoreddy]

You kick it high with the intention it lands within the 10, forces a return but doesn't guarantee they get far past the 20 either and you kill a couple of seconds (which is a lifetime after what we saw)

If you squib its too easy for the returner to just down it, waste no clock, and they end up past the 20.

But your main goal on that kickoff had to be to give Mahomes the least amount of time possible. You have to be aware your D is gassed and that Mahomes was simply playing at another level so stopping him was near impossible.