no he did not but if right call made, even his atrocious clock management would not have mattered.
OT: NFL thread
- Thread starter Thurston
- Start date
lecoqsportif
Well-known member
Typical .....the game breaking calls going the Pats way
wrong game, Rams got the benefit
now granted, there were some calls that went in Mr. Bundschen's favour to say the least.
I agree although there is the risk, albeit small, of an LSU-Texas A&M type game that lasts six hours.
I also would prefer the NFL go from the spot foul on PI to 15 yards or spot foul whichever is less.
My Rams should of been eliminated , that non call was ridiculous .
I still say Edelman clipped that ball , that game was over on that play
to me wasn't enough to overturn
Guibs
Well-known member
Not the best weekend for the NFL when it came to the results.
In one game, a blatant missed call cost a team the superbowl while in the other, the coin toss decided the winner.
I still can't get my head around that medieval rule. Both offence should be given a chance at it in OT. It's the ONLY sport where the other team isn't given the same opportunity as the other in OT.
In baseball, if in the top inning, the team score points, the other team gets the chance at to reply back in the bottom inning so both team plays the same amount of "inning" in OT.
In CFL, both team are given a chance on offence before the victor is decided.
In the NHL and Soccer, both team are given the same amount of "penalty shots" before a winner is determined. NFL footbal is the only sport, to the best of my knowledge, where a coin toss gives a HUGE advantage over the other.
Some who say it's not are not being honest. For example, how many times, has the team who won the coin toss in OT in the NFL, has that team decided NOT to start on offence? I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure that answers is NEVER and that's just to show you how that coin toss provides a HUGE advantage to the winner.
In one game, a blatant missed call cost a team the superbowl while in the other, the coin toss decided the winner.
I still can't get my head around that medieval rule. Both offence should be given a chance at it in OT. It's the ONLY sport where the other team isn't given the same opportunity as the other in OT.
In baseball, if in the top inning, the team score points, the other team gets the chance at to reply back in the bottom inning so both team plays the same amount of "inning" in OT.
In CFL, both team are given a chance on offence before the victor is decided.
In the NHL and Soccer, both team are given the same amount of "penalty shots" before a winner is determined. NFL footbal is the only sport, to the best of my knowledge, where a coin toss gives a HUGE advantage over the other.
Some who say it's not are not being honest. For example, how many times, has the team who won the coin toss in OT in the NFL, has that team decided NOT to start on offence? I don't have the numbers but I'm pretty sure that answers is NEVER and that's just to show you how that coin toss provides a HUGE advantage to the winner.
The counter-argument is that defense is part of the game too and the Chiefs should learn how to play some. The Pats converted three long 3rd down attempts. That's on the Chiefs D. And only about 53% of OT coin toss winners win in NFL OT, thus the results suggest that the NFL OT rule is actually pretty fair, and that the coin toss does NOT provide a huge advantage to the winner of the toss.
Last edited:
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
Nine yrs ago, you could actually win the toss and win the game with a simple FG, which is what the Saints did to my Vikes in 2009. The league changed the rule before the following season. As an aside, that was the same game where the Saints went bounty hunter on Favre. Lots of crucial non calls that went against the Vikings that game.
I'm enjoying what Viking fans are calling Paytonfreude.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62881876/1097145500.jpg.0.jpg)
Guibs
Well-known member
It's still a stupid counter-argument. It's like if in the NHL during the shutout, you do a coin toss and one team goes first, they score and the game is over. It's retarded. Each team should be given the same opportunity in OT. If one team has a chance on offense, the other should as well.
Goaltending is part of the game and yet the NHL provide the same equal chance. All other sports do it, so I don't buy any of these arguments. The NFL should make the proper changes.
No, actually it's not. Facts are facts. If the team winning the coin toss has only won 53% of the time since this system came into effect in 2011, then that suggests that it's at least a fair, albeit not an optimal, process. Your hockey analogy is a bad one - there's no distinction in hockey scoring, a goal is a goal, but a field goal is not a touchdown. The Chiefs lost the game because their defense was brutal, not because they lost a coin toss. They fired Bot Cotton, their defensive coordinator, on Monday. I don't think the org. cared about a lost coin toss.
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
Yeah. His scheme in OT was brutal. He went with a Cover 2 scheme (2 safeties playing deep) which challenged Brady to throw a quick intermediate pass...which Brady much prefers doing rather than throwing deep to his speed challenged wideouts. It was so obvious...and why Romo was able to easily predict the plays
there is something about Edelman I hate, maybe his stupid beard, or the fact he dumped Adriana Lima
lecoqsportif
Well-known member
Too many options. White is deadly coming out of the backfield if you try to jam up the middle of field to take anyway Edelman and Gronk.
Atlanta learned the hard way.
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
Chiefs didn't need to play two safeties deep on pretty much every play in OT. Why protect the deep ball when Brady thrives on intermediate throws?