Super Bowl

[wbbfan]

4 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

NFL has the best format.  It's actual football.  I don't get how Canadians dislike it.  Are people bellyaching that the losing team in a sudden death hockey OT didn't get another shot on goal to try to score?  Pretty similar.  Two teams on the field playing ball.  Stop them from scoring a TD and your offence gets a shot to.

I like it better then the shoot out we have too. I like the shoot out a lot better then a tie though. 

[tacklewasher]

5 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

NFL has the best format.  It's actual football.  I don't get how Canadians dislike it.  Are people bellyaching that the losing team in a sudden death hockey OT didn't get another shot on goal to try to score?  Pretty similar.  Two teams on the field playing ball.  Stop them from scoring a TD and your offence gets a shot to.

Not similar to hockey at all.

The baseball analogy is better. In this case the Super Bowl was decided by a coin flip.

[17to85]

11 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

NFL has the best format.  It's actual football.  I don't get how Canadians dislike it.  Are people bellyaching that the losing team in a sudden death hockey OT didn't get another shot on goal to try to score?  Pretty similar.  Two teams on the field playing ball.  Stop them from scoring a TD and your offence gets a shot to.

Hockey is totally different, it's a fluid game where the action naturally goes back and forth, in that scenario a sudden death format is completely equitable because both teams have a chance to get the puck right off the opening face off, in football though one team gets the ball based on a coin flip. Sure you can say stop them and get your own chance with the ball but to have the potential of losing without ever getting  a chance with the ball is a tough way to lose. The shoot out that the CFL uses might not be perfect but I like it a hell of a lot better than sudden death OT. 

[Jpan85]

12 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

Not similar to hockey at all.

The baseball analogy is better. In this case the Super Bowl was decided by a coin flip.

No it was decided by Falcons D failure to stop Patriots.

[Atomic]

16 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

Not similar to hockey at all.

The baseball analogy is better. In this case the Super Bowl was decided by a coin flip.

No it was NOT.  This is WRONG and people need to stop saying it.

Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that receives the ball first has won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent.  (stats accurate as of Dec 29, 2015)

Only in NARNIA is a 54.2 percent chance an automatic win.  So you need to go back to NARNIA with all the other dreamers who do not understand PROBABILITY!!  

THREAD OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sweep the leg]

27 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Are people bellyaching that the losing team in a sudden death hockey OT didn't get another shot on goal to try to score?  Pretty similar. 

It's not similar at all. In the NHL both teams have an equal opportunity to win from the opening faceoff in ot.

[TBURGESS]

25 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

Not similar to hockey at all.

The baseball analogy is better. In this case the Super Bowl was decided by a coin flip.

The baseball analogy isn't any good unless you change it to if the team at the top of the inning scores 3 or under the game goes on, if they score 6 the game is over. That would make it closer to the NFL rules.

[JuranBoldenRules]

34 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Hockey is totally different, it's a fluid game where the action naturally goes back and forth, in that scenario a sudden death format is completely equitable because both teams have a chance to get the puck right off the opening face off, in football though one team gets the ball based on a coin flip. Sure you can say stop them and get your own chance with the ball but to have the potential of losing without ever getting  a chance with the ball is a tough way to lose. The shoot out that the CFL uses might not be perfect but I like it a hell of a lot better than sudden death OT. 

The centre ice faceoff isn't much more than a coin flip.  If your team doesn't get zone time and the other team scores first should you get another draw?  No because you need to play D and get the puck back.  Probably more sudden death in football because pick six is game over too.  No room for error.

I hate the CFL OT.  Only thing that would make it reasonable is if they started at their own 35.

[JuranBoldenRules]

21 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

It's not similar at all. In the NHL both teams have an equal opportunity to win from the opening faceoff in ot.

Like a coin flip!

[mbrg]

Football is the only sport where in overtime the potential for only one team to get a turn on offence exists.

In hockey the comparison would be only one team getting a turn on the shootout.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In soccer the comparison would be only one team getting a chance to take penalty kicks.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In baseball the comparison would be only one team getting a chance at bat.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In all three of those sports, each of the defending teams has a chance to stop the offensive team.  And yet if they failed to do so, no sane person would argue that the structure was fair because "they could have stopped them".  So why is that argument used in football?

[sweep the leg]

2 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Like a coin flip!

Except one's a skill and not just luck! So not really...

[JuranBoldenRules]

1 minute ago, mbrg said:

Football is the only sport where in overtime the potential for only one team to get a turn on offence exists.

In hockey the comparison would be only one team getting a turn on the shootout.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In soccer the comparison would be only one team getting a chance to take penalty kicks.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In baseball the comparison would be only one team getting a chance at bat.  The other team gets a turn only if they fail.

In all three of those sports, each of the defending teams has a chance to stop the offensive team.  And yet if they failed to do so, no sane person would argue that the structure was fair because "they could have stopped them".  So why is that argument used in football?

One team could win the draw and score in hockey just the same without the other team getting a shot at "offense."  Happening quite a bit with 3 on 3.

[Mark F]

5 hours ago, wpgallday1960 said:

Plus the fact that arrogant Kyle Shannahan went away from the running game once they had  a big lead.  The play call that led to Ryan's sack/fumble was curious to say the least.  If you're going to pass, short quick routes would have been far safer.  Leaving him in the pocket for an extended period of time (with the Pats clearly blitzing because they trailed), was just dumb.

just heard Ben Lieber (retired linebacker) say the same thing. That rather than just winning the game, the Falcons tried to humiliate the Patriots. used the word arrogant.

[Brandon Blue&Gold]

I gotta ask to those arguing that the current NFL OT rules are B.S.... Would you feel the same if ATL had won the coin toss and driven the field for the game winning TD?  If yes, then carry on.  If not, well, .  

I'm not the biggest fan of their OT format but at least they changed it a couple of years ago to give both teams a shot if the first team only scored a FG.  Before that change NFL OT was ridiculous, sudden death on a FG?  Lame. 

ATL had a shot.  If their D did what they're paid to do they could have stopped the Pats and given the ball back to Ryan.  Wouldn't have even needed a TD, a FG would have ended it.  But the Pats used TOP in the 2nd half to slowly grind the Falcons D down to nothing when they were needed the most.  And the less said about the Falcons drive late in the 4th that handed the ball back to Brady the better.  Pats won ATL lost.  Great game. 

[mbrg]

4 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

One team could win the draw and score in hockey just the same without the other team getting a shot at "offense."  Happening quite a bit with 3 on 3.

I'm not going to argue this because I have zero emotional investment it the rules of the NFL, but if you think the normal play of hockey is the same as sports where teams take turns playing offence and defence as defined by the rules of the game then you are being deliberately obtuse.

You don't like the CFL overtime format because there's no kickoffs or punts?  Fine.  They both suck for different reasons.

[tacklewasher]

5 minutes ago, Brandon Blue&Gold said:

I gotta ask to those arguing that the current NFL OT rules are B.S.... Would you feel the same if ATL had won the coin toss and driven the field for the game winning TD?  If yes, then carry on.  If not, well, .  

I'm not the biggest fan of their OT format but at least they changed it a couple of years ago to give both teams a shot if the first team only scored a FG.  Before that change NFL OT was ridiculous, sudden death on a FG?  Lame. 

ATL had a shot.  If their D did what they're paid to do they could have stopped the Pats and given the ball back to Ryan.  Wouldn't have even needed a TD, a FG would have ended it.  But the Pats used TOP in the 2nd half to slowly grind the Falcons D down to nothing when they were needed the most.  And the less said about the Falcons drive late in the 4th that handed the ball back to Brady the better.  Pats won ATL lost.  Great game. 

 

Didn't have any real preference on who won, beside cheering for the underdog, so an Atl win of the same fashion would still be a Meh win for me. Don't like their OT rules at all.

But no question Atl lost the game in regulation. Whether it was the D not stopping the Pats, or Atl playing for a major instead of running the ball and eating the clock, they lost the game.

Each team should get a possession. Not at the 35 like in the CFL, but receive a kick and march the length of the field.

[JuranBoldenRules]

2 minutes ago, mbrg said:

I'm not going to argue this because I have zero emotional investment it the rules of the NFL, but if you think the normal play of hockey is the same as sports where teams take turns playing offence and defence as defined by the rules of the game then you are being deliberately obtuse.

You don't like the CFL overtime format because there's no kickoffs or punts?  Fine.  They both suck for different reasons.

Except the defence can score in football.  You are describing baseball.  Hell Atlanta scored a defensive TD in that game.  Once one team has the puck in hockey the other team usually has to make several plays to generate a scoring chance.  Same in football with the exception being a pick six or a breakaway.

First score wins.

[WBBFanWest]

29 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Except the defence can score in football.  You are describing baseball.  Hell Atlanta scored a defensive TD in that game.  Once one team has the puck in hockey the other team usually has to make several plays to generate a scoring chance.  Same in football with the exception being a pick six or a breakaway.

First score wins.

Not that I care all that much about the NFL, but you seem to suggest that because the defense CAN score a td, the idea that possession isn't all that critical.  Let me ask you a question then.  In the NFL in 2016, how many offensive TD's were scored versus defensive?  Once you've answered that one ask yourself this: given what you've just learned, would you want to be offence for the first series in OT?

[Atomic]

18 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Not that I care all that much about the NFL, but you seem to suggest that because the defense CAN score a td, the idea that possession isn't all that critical.  Let me ask you a question then.  In the NFL in 2016, how many offensive TD's were scored versus defensive?  Once you've answered that one ask yourself this: given what you've just learned, would you want to be offence for the first series in OT?

No one is arguing that starting with the ball is not an advantage.  The argument is that the advantage is not as huge as people are trying to make it out to be  ("a coin flip determined the winner").  And the numbers support that argument.  It's about the same advantage as having home field, in terms of wins and losses.

[WBBFanWest]

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

No one is arguing that starting with the ball is not an advantage.  The argument is that the advantage is not as huge as people are trying to make it out to be  ("a coin flip determined the winner").  And the numbers support that argument.  It's about the same advantage as having home field, in terms of wins and losses.

My point still stands.  There is a clear advantage to starting with the ball.  One can debate just how great, but you and I would both want the ball to start OT given the fact that if we score a td, it's over.  Therefore the coin flip is critical.  Does it "determine" the winner?  No, but if no one wants to lose the coin toss, there is inherent bias that could easily be corrected.

[JuranBoldenRules]

30 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Not that I care all that much about the NFL, but you seem to suggest that because the defense CAN score a td, the idea that possession isn't all that critical.  Let me ask you a question then.  In the NFL in 2016, how many offensive TD's were scored versus defensive?  Once you've answered that one ask yourself this: given what you've just learned, would you want to be offence for the first series in OT?

Oh I'd want the ball.  I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I didn't get it first and lost though.  That's BS.  Starting on D you still have as much of a chance to win, even a mild advantage in that you don't need a TD to win if you can get a stop/turnover and the other guys do.  It goes both ways.  You need to play the game out.  

Edited February 7, 2017 by JuranBoldenRules

[Mr Dee]

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

NFL has the best format.  It's actual football.  I don't get how Canadians dislike it.  Are people bellyaching that the losing team in a sudden death hockey OT didn't get another shot on goal to try to score?  Pretty similar.  Two teams on the field playing ball.  Stop them from scoring a TD and your offence gets a shot to.

Not similar at all. Playoff hockey can go 3-4-5 extra periods until one team scores. Even in regular games, the shootouts give both teams an equal amount of shots to score. Flipping this comparison around, the NHL should then have a coin toss and if the 1st team that scores wins - game over. 

Yeah right.

[Jpan85]

Sombody should tell Matt Hasselbeck that getting the ball first is a big advantage.

 

[Mr Dee]

2 hours ago, tacklewasher said:

The baseball analogy is better. In this case the Super Bowl was decided by a coin flip.

And in baseball they do play the bottom of the inning no matter how long it takes.

2 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

No it was decided by Falcons D failure to stop Patriots.

Too bad we couldn't see if the Patriots could then stop the Falcons offence..

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Like a coin flip!

Not at all. Both teams have the same chance to gain control..even if they don't win the face off.

1 hour ago, tacklewasher said:

Each team should get a possession. Not at the 35 like in the CFL, but receive a kick and march the length of the field.

Exactly. Where's the harm in this scenario?

[JuranBoldenRules]

16 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Not similar at all. Playoff hockey can go 3-4-5 extra periods until one team scores. Even in regular games, the shootouts give both teams an equal amount of shots to score. Flipping this comparison around, the NHL should then have a coin toss and if the 1st team that scores wins - game over. 

Yeah right.

Playoff football goes until someone scores too.  Could be 3 quarters.  There's a coin toss before the third quarter again though....rats!