Bills fan Kyle Brandt caught flip-flopping in 4k

[Dante84]

First, Kyle's opinion this week, after his Bills lost:

This is my overtime solution. Wish the Chiefs had it a few years back, too. pic.twitter.com/y57IYWX65C

— Kyle Brandt (@KyleBrandt) January 25, 2022

But he didn't always feel that way. Here he is in 2019, when KC proposed the rule change after losing to the Patriots in the same way:

This you? @KyleBrandt https://t.co/XIEk4TDZKU pic.twitter.com/84UIryReAo

— Remy Lekneau (@ajp1128) January 25, 2022

[Valiant]

It sucked when it was against the Patriots. But I still don't want to change it.

It is never going to be fair. If we open up to 1 and 1 rule. It is still next team to score.

Go a full qtr and tied? Next team to score or another qtr?

[Pasta Little Brioni]

I just don't understand why people think it's a guarantee TD on the first possession of OT. It's not and data proves it if you don't cherry pick. The Bills don't get an imaginary pretend TD drive fir a hypothetical coin toss loss just like KC in 19. Bills lost legitly end of story

[Valiant]

Imagine this back and forth or extra periods and a star qb gets a major injury.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Keep going until either:

A. One team doesn’t answer with a TD and can be eliminated bc the opposing team gets a TD.

B. Time runs out

The players playing longer doesn’t matter. It’s OT. Win the game. It’s not like the NFL isn’t adding more games to the regular season anyway. At this rate we’ll have 20 regular season games by 2030.

You realize that there is an NFLPA, right? And contractual time obligations, right?

Like, games can't just go on forever. There's a reason sudden death was put in place in the first place.

Yeah, go ask the NFLPA how they'd feel about adding additional quarters to a game.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brother

I just don't understand why people think it's a guarantee TD on the first possession of OT. It's not and data proves it if you don't cherry pick. The Bills don't get an imaginary pretend TD drive fir a hypothetical coin toss loss just like KC in 19. Bills lost legitly end of story

20%, man.

Teams who receive the 1st possession score a TD on the opening drive only 20% of the time.

It's a NON-ISSUE.

[siberian khatru]

Has this been brought up anywhere?

If the other team is guaranteed a possession, they do so with the extra knowledge of what it takes to win the game. In other words, if the first team scores a TD and kicks the PAT, the second team not only knows it needs a TD, it also can go for 2 for the win and not give the ball back. (Or risk not making it and losing.)

Now, the first team could go for 2 to go up 8, but if they fail, the other team knows it only has to kick to win.

See what I'm saying?

Maybe the solution would be to require both teams to go for 2 each and every time in OT. But then you're still looking at long games and player safety, etc.

[Dayze]

Detoxing nailed in in #73

[Red Dawg]

What a ****ing stupid ****ing idea. Why not just play the game forever until we get the winner we want.

Him and Pat Mac can go **** themselves in their pussies. The Bills had 60 minutes to win the game. In that time they failed. They had to keep us from completing a 75 yard drive to get a td and hold us to an FG. They failed to give themselves the ball back. The NFL didn't not fail to give them a second chance, they failed to give themselves a second chance.

But Allen didn't his shot? Well, then he can blame himself for not having more points and winning outright or he can look to his left and blame the 11 guys that went full bitch in the OT.

Whine like pussies all you want Bills fans. Life isn't fair.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I don't necessarily love/hate the sudden death aspect, but would much rather HFA determine who gets the ball first in OT... use something that's already been earned, not a freakin coin.

And go one way or the other... not the "score a TD and the game is over, but not over with a FG". I don't like changing rules for OT. Either do sudden death, guarantee one possession each, or do a 10 or 15 minute period.

I'd prefer the timed period for the playoffs, but would be fine with simply guaranteeing one possession each and sudden death after that.

I like and don't like parts of this but that's kind of the issue. Eventually, someone has to win and someone will be pissed off.

Personally, I'd kind of like to see a continuation of the game for an additional 15-minute period but that's asking a lot of the players.

If anything, I'd like to see both teams guaranteed possession and if that ends in a tie then the current rules go into effect.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by ptlyon

How about each team gets to pick their own "Pickup sticks with your butt cheeks" contestant?

hope we never play the Raiders with Nassib.

[New World Order]

So much butthurt

[tk13]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Has this been brought up anywhere?

If the other team is guaranteed a possession, they do so with the extra knowledge of what it takes to win the game. In other words, if the first team scores a TD and kicks the PAT, the second team not only knows it needs a TD, it also can go for 2 for the win and not give the ball back. (Or risk not making it and losing.)

Now, the first team could go for 2 to go up 8, but if they fail, the other team knows it only has to kick to win.

See what I'm saying?

Maybe the solution would be to require both teams to go for 2 each and every time in OT. But then you're still looking at long games and player safety, etc.

I don't remember where I saw this but one idea I saw floated was just make it so first team to score 8 points wins OT. But that still creates long games and it seems like a lot of the players aren't fans of anything that makes OT longer.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Has this been brought up anywhere?

If the other team is guaranteed a possession, they do so with the extra knowledge of what it takes to win the game. In other words, if the first team scores a TD and kicks the PAT, the second team not only knows it needs a TD, it also can go for 2 for the win and not give the ball back. (Or risk not making it and losing.)

Now, the first team could go for 2 to go up 8, but if they fail, the other team knows it only has to kick to win.

See what I'm saying?

Maybe the solution would be to require both teams to go for 2 each and every time in OT. But then you're still looking at long games and player safety, etc.

Originally Posted by Detoxing

**************************

Ok, how about this for not fair:

Team 1 goes down and scores and elects to kick the XP.

Team 2 now has a HUGE advantage, as they can now elect for a 2pnt conversion and win the game outright.

In a situation in which both teams are guaranteed a possession, there's a very clear strategic advantage to receiving the ball 2nd.

Team 1 has to decide if they should kick the XP or go for two. If they go for 1, team 2 has a decided advantage over team 1 in their next possession as they KNOW they can win with a 2pt, while team 1 risks either losing by NOT going for 2, or going for 2, missing and then losing to team 2 who now only needs to kick an XP to win.

That's such a massive advantage to the team with the 2nd possession it's not even funny. Much bigger advantage than just winning a coin flip

No, you're dead ass right. It's a massive advantage. It's almost like...this wasn't thought out very well.

So now we have all these jackasses trying to fix a problem that isn't even a problem (20-mother****ing percent) and are instead making it even MORE broken. If they could rub two damn braincells together and think for a second....

[TimBone]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

These overtime rule changes are so poorly thought out.

Im so sick of hearing this. It's STILL not fair. All you're doing is extending the game.

Ok, so Mahomes get the ball and scores. Great.

Then Allen gets the ball and scores. Great.

NOW what? Now the next score wins? NOW the defense matters? So Mahomes gets the ball after Allen scores, goes down the field and scores. Can the game be over now, or does Allen still get another chance to make it fair?

At what point do we acknoweldge that a stop has to be made? And if a stop HAS to be made, then wtf is the point of extending it at all? Just so Allen can score one more touchdown and still lose the exact same ****ing way when Mahomes gets the ball back?

**************************

Ok, how about this for not fair:

Team 1 goes down and scores and elects to kick the XP.

Team 2 now has a HUGE advantage, as they can now elect for a 2pnt conversion and win the game outright.

In a situation in which both teams are guaranteed a possession, there's a very clear strategic advantage to receiving the ball 2nd.

Team 1 has to decide if they should kick the XP or go for two. If they go for 1, team 2 has a decided advantage over team 1 in their next possession as they KNOW they can win with a 2pt, while team 1 risks either losing by NOT going for 2, or going for 2, missing and then losing to team 2 who now only needs to kick an XP to win.

That's such a massive advantage to the team with the 2nd possession it's not even funny. Much bigger advantage than just winning a coin flip

**************************************************

And here's the real kicker:

In the playoffs, only 20% of the teams that receive the ball in OT are actually winning them on the first possession.

20% you dolts!

20%!


For that math illiterate, 80-mother****ing percent of the time BOTH QB'S ARE touching the ball under current rules.

80-mother****ing percent of the time both offenses get a chance in OT. Jesus.

This isn't even a real issue! It's a completely false narrative drummed up by pouty bitch ass losers. It's not even a real ****ing problem in the NFL for christ's sake.

Not to mention, team #2 is in 4 down territory the whole drive if they know they have to score a TD.

[staylor26]

Every solution I’ve heard ****ing sucks dick.