OT: Blues Forum Lounge (Home of All Things OT) - Part XI

[Bye Felicia]

Certainly the players deserve a lot of blame, but that was some of the worst coaching I've ever seen. If anybody choked it was Kyle Shanahan--it was like his mind totally went blank.

The worst choke job on the part of players that I've ever seen was probably that Northern Iowa vs. Texas A&M game during March Madness last year. But given Northern Iowa's amazing run up to that point and the gravity of that moment that they probably never envisioned being in, you couldn't help but understand that and just feel really bad for those guys.

 

[Bye Felicia]

Yeah, but NFL overtime is still terrible. A coin flip shouldn't have that big of an effect on the outcome of the super bowl.

I think that the team that ties should kick. Maybe that would incentive more playing for the lead instead of a tie.

 

[Thallis]

I think that the team that ties should kick. Maybe that would incentive more playing for the lead instead of a tie.

They should just give both teams a possession and go until one can't answer. None of this nonsense about sudden death in a possession based game. You don't end the world series after the top of the 10th inning.

 

[MissouriMook]

I think that the team that ties should kick. Maybe that would incentive more playing for the lead instead of a tie.

I think they should just continue play like they do after the 1st and 3rd quarters. It also eliminates the sandbagging trying to get it to OT. In the context of this game, maybe the Falcons play a little more conservatively getting the ball down the field in the last minute if they know that they keep the ball after time runs out. Instead, the game is essentially decided by a coin toss.
.
.
.
Well, that and the Falcons' D's complete inability to stop the Patriots from doing anything.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I think that the team that ties should kick. Maybe that would incentive more playing for the lead instead of a tie.

I like that. Or better, the team that most recently had the lead gets their choice of receiving or not (though they almost always will take the ball, unless there is crazy wind conditions or something).

 

[bluesfan94]

I like that. Or better, the team that most recently had the lead gets their choice of receiving or not (though they almost always will take the ball, unless there is crazy wind conditions or something).

But what if the game has been tied since the 2nd quarter? Doesn't really seem to make sense then. Or if it's a 0-0 game (obviously highly unlikely although it happened in the NCAA in 2014).

 

[2 Minute Minor]

But what if the game has been tied since the 2nd quarter? Doesn't really seem to make sense then. Or if it's a 0-0 game (obviously highly unlikely although it happened in the NCAA in 2014).

0-0 game you'd have to flip a coin.

I don't have a problem with the sudden death rule. If you can't stop a team from driving all the way the length of the field for a touchdown when the chips are down, its hard to argue that you're the better team. I prefer this method to the artificial situation that the NCAA creates with alternating possessions from the 25.

 

[bluesfan94]

0-0 game you'd have to flip a coin.

I don't have a problem with the sudden death rule. If you can't stop a team from driving all the way the length of the field for a touchdown when the chips are down, its hard to argue that you're the better team. I prefer this method to the artificial situation that the NCAA creates with alternating possessions from the 25.

What if you could do the exact same to them had you started with possession?

 

[PiggySmalls]

What if you could do the exact same to them had you started with possession?

I see your point. But I compare it to Hockey. Especially the playoffs, why can't a team be given the rest of the OT period to tie the game.

 

[bluesfan94]

I see your point. But I compare it to Hockey. Especially the playoffs, why can't a team be given the rest of the OT period to tie the game.

In hockey, at least in theory, both teams have the chance to do so. It's much more balanced in that sense compared to football. Yes, of course, defense in football can score points and we saw that last night. But comparing the two aren't the same.

The much better comparison is baseball. The equivalency to 2MM's argument is if you can't keep a team from scoring (let's say) 3 runs on you (because a FG doesn't end the game in the NFL) in the top half of the inning, then you're clearly not the better team. That's unfair. Admittedly it isn't a perfect comparison because the team playing defense in baseball can't score and there aren't limits to the amount of points that either team can score per half inning.

 

[Bye Felicia]

But what if the game has been tied since the 2nd quarter? Doesn't really seem to make sense then. Or if it's a 0-0 game (obviously highly unlikely although it happened in the NCAA in 2014).

I support the idea for two reasons: (1) from a fan's perspective, I think it makes the game more exciting when a trailing team plays for the lead as the clock winds down; and (2) it rewards the team that took the early initiative--if you're trailing, you dug your own hole, so I don't think it's particularly unfair to put the pressure on you.

That being said, there are certainly arguments against. Why should we reward the team that scored first? Why should points in the 4th be worth less than points in the 1st? And it's an imperfect proxy that's going to be overinclusive. On the farthest side of the spectrum, consider if a team receives the opening kickoff, scores, and it's still 3-0 or 7-0 as the clock winds down. In that situation, you are again basically rewarding one team for winning a coin toss.

In the end, I still prefer getting rid of sudden death. But if we're going to keep that, and somebody has to get the ball first, I'd rather give it to the team that was leading before the tie than leaving it up to a coin toss.

Edit: Admittedly, I haven't given this any great thought, so I'm sure there are better proposals out there and more compelling arguments for why I'm wrong.

 

[TheDizee]

Falcons took a 28-3 lead.

Ran the ball just FOUR times after that. That is choking worse than the Blues ever have.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

What if you could do the exact same to them had you started with possession?

Then I'd argue that you aren't the better team. If you are only better than them on one side of the ball, you're not demonstrating that you're better. In that case, maybe a coin flip is just as fair of a way to settle it as any.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Falcons took a 28-3 lead.

Ran the ball just FOUR times after that. That is choking worse than the Blues ever have.

Yeah, it was questionable. New England never did prove they could stop the run, and Atlanta was getting good pressure rushing only 4 all day long. It shouldn't have been close. Amazing come back, but I think Atlanta could have helped themselves.

 

[The Note]

Falcons took a 28-3 lead.

Ran the ball just FOUR times after that. That is choking worse than the Blues ever have.

It's not even choking it's just horrendous play calling.

 

[bluesfan94]

Then I'd argue that you aren't the better team. If you are only better than them on one side of the ball, you're not demonstrating that you're better. In that case, maybe a coin flip is just as fair of a way to settle it as any.

Well yeah, but that means the other team isn't the better team either. Hence why both should have an opportunity to prove it.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Well yeah, but that means the other team isn't the better team either. Hence why both should have an opportunity to prove it.

It really doesn't bother me. The games can't go on forever. You also already had 60 minutes to prove that your team was better. If its that close, then having alternating possession may not demonstrate much difference either. They've already ensured that a FG isn't sufficient. If your team, KNOWING THAT THE GAME IS DECIDED BY THIS DRIVE, can't stop them from scoring a TD, then you have no argument that your team is the better team. At best, you're about even, but if we're not going to have ties then you gotta have someone go first.

 

[Ranksu]

 

[bleedblue1223]

OMG, that was hilarious.

 

[RORbacon]

I don't know what I was expecting but that was brilliant.

 

[tfriede2]

Agreed. It was hilarious, okay? Brilliant.

 

[Celtic Note]

I am still laughing every time I think of it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I watched some of the other video's for America first, [Europe country] second, and I think that one is still my favorite.

 

[542365]

This was great. I've seen the Netherlands version. I didn't realize it was a series.

 

[David Dennison]

I'd still like the Cardinals add an outfielder. Pham and Grichuk have both been up and down thru their careers, and they are our 3rd and 4th outfielders. And who else is behind them? Wong, or maybe Peralta in left? Im not sure who is left out there, but I'd like to see them add someone with a little experince. IMO, depth has been a key to the Cardinals success over the past decade. I see it in the infield, I see it in the pitching, but I think we need another guy in the outfield.