How totally, incomprehensibly, dick-suckingly gay.

Let's just stop keeping score so no NFL players will ever be traumatized again by losing...After all, building self esteem is the most important part of playing in the NFL...

:spock: I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this. Let the athletes decide the game, not the kickers.

This is a waste of time if they don't apply it to all games.

i like it. In the end someone still loses and the ones that lose deserve to lose. Letting kickers decide games in overtime is a huge ****ing boooo.

How does this remove the kicker from winning the game?


http://fb.img.v4.skyrock.net/fb8/mis...89_small_1.jpg

Because the original OT puts games almost squarely in the hands of a kicker. This option at least forces both teams to consider being aggressive and going for a TD (the first team would want to go for the TD to guarantee a win, and the second team might go for the TD if the first team scores a first-possession FG).

There's at least some strategy. Do I kick or do I go for it? I don't see how anyone would have a problem for it.

So.....it changes nothing other than extending the length of games and padding the stats of QB's.

Really? That's what you got out of that? You think QBs really care about their stat line in the playoffs?

What it does is it forces teams to aggressively attack on their first possession, instead of getting to the 30 yard line and then pussying out with a few runs up the middle and a field goal on 2nd down. What it does is it forces coaches to actually use strategy in OT. In today's OT, the only strategy is: you win the toss, you receive, and you go for a TD but if you get in field goal range, you lay up.

In the new OT format, there is actually some disadvantage to choosing to receive. On the one hand, you have the huge advantage of being able to win the game outright by scoring a TD. On the other hand, you have the huge disadvantage of being the "visiting team", in that if you don't score a TD, the second possession team knows exactly how many points they need to score to win the game.

And when you get to the 30 yard line, no more Marty ball bullshit and laying up. If you want to lay up and kick a field goal, you better accept the fact that the second team can beat you if they choose to attack the end zone.

More strategy. Forces teams to be aggressive. And in today's OT, 30% of teams are winning without the second team ever touching the ball--that number should go down SIGNIFICANTLY with the new OT format, which means that games will be decided by players, not a coin.

I don't see what the issue is here. Is it perfect? No. But how can anyone possibly defend today's lame excuse for an OT format?

You honestly think they don't?

No, it doesn't.

Take a defensive team like Baltimore or Pitt.

You really think they'd worry about going up 3 and holding the other team?

On OFFENSE.

In KC.

Over the last 2 decades.

You think defensive coordinators stand slobbering on the sidelines with juice boxes while rolling dice?

"Do I blitz and hope the pressure forces incompletions and a 3 n' out? Do I go soft zone with a sad azz QB and wait for HIM to make the mistake? Do I play man or zone facing a WR like Moss or a pass catching HB like Jones-Drew?"

None of those decisions become any less important under the new rule change. The only difference is the length of the game.

Nobody cares about a QB's stat line in the playoffs. And it's ridiculous to say that this has anything to do with padding the stat line, given that all it does is maybe add an extra TD to their stat line at the most. And yeah, maybe if the game extends past 2 OTs, they'll get a few extra yards here and there. But you're forgetting the fact that after 1 possession each, it becomes sudden death. So a QB's stats get padded by 1 extra drive. Maybe--big maybe. Boo hoo.


If you're a great defensive team, you would elect to kick, shut the other team down for 0 or 3 points, and then you have the opportunity to win or tie with your offense. If your defense forces a punt, you could win with a field goal. And yes, there is actually good strategic reason now to choose to kick when you flip a coin. If I'm the Steelers, I'd MUCH rather shut a team down for 0 points and know that a FG wins the game. Again, where's the problem?

There are huge implications for defense. Red zone defense is a critical part of any defense. There are "bend don't break" defenses that rely on their ability to hold up on short fields. And I would argue that those defenses tend to gamble a lot more with sell-out blitzes, etc..., because they know that even if they give up one big play, it won't lose them the game. That's what's really stupid about today's OT rules. All it takes is one big play and the game is over. One. In current OT, you take away red zone defenses because any team that gets to within the 30 yard line will run the ball up the middle twice and then kick the ball on 3rd down.

Also, within the 50 yard line, it forces defenses to deal with an entire offensive playbook. In today's rules, you'll do just enough to get to the 30 yard line. In the new rules, you can gamble and go for the end zone on a deep pass to end the game.

In today's OT, you flip a coin, choose to receive, play for the field goal, and play Marty Ball when you get to the 50. Yawn.