2010 NFL Off Season Thread

[OILFAN #81]

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=315193

OT rules officially changed for next year's playoff games.

I love it.

[Montana Moe]

I like the fact that if the defense makes a play and gets a safety, the game is over.

If the kicking team makes an onside kick to start OT and does not recover, they can lose on a FG.

Also, if the team wins the toss, recieves, and kicks a FG, they can make an onside kick and if they recover the game is over.

[Sainters7]

I like it too. Nice change. I just love how it took Brett Favre to do it...

[transplant99]

Such an unnecessary change.

Going back to 1958 there have been 27 playoff OT games. This rule change would of affected 3 of them. So they do this because 11% of the games in NFL OT history were decided by a team scoring a FG on its first possesion? Makes NO sense.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Such an unnecessary change.

Going back to 1958 there have been 27 playoff OT games. This rule change would of affected 3 of them. So they do this because 11% of the games in NFL history were decided by a team scoring a FG on its first possesion? Makes NO sense.

It's the optics of the thing IMO.

When the average/casual viewer looks at NFL OT right now, they see who wins the coin toss and says "that's the game!" even if it necessarily isn't the case.

Plus it is preventative for the future - it would really suck to see any game decided by a FG 3 mins into OT, at least this way the other team gets a chance to respond.

[Sylvanfan]

I'm not a big fan of the change. If anything I'd have preferred to see the team who earned home field in the playoffs automatically earn the right to receive the ball in OT, and the team with the best record in the Superbowl.

[mykalberta]

I was ok with the old OT rules.

Wont this just be incentive for teams to knee the ball and go to OT knowing they have another chance instead of taking chances to end the game instead of resting hopes on a coin toss.

[Sylvanfan]

Andy Reid made a comment this morning about keeping his ears open in regards to his QB's. So a lot of talk that they may be willing to move McNabb with him only having one year left on his contract and Kevin Cobb and Michael Vick on the roster.

[KTown]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I'm not a big fan of the change. If anything I'd have preferred to see the team who earned home field in the playoffs automatically earn the right to receive the ball in OT, and the team with the best record in the Superbowl.

That's what I like, I would also like to see that in the regular season. It would make the visiting team work alot harder instead of taking a risk wit hthe toin coss, possibly also going for two instead of one to get the lead.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

It's the optics of the thing IMO.

When the average/casual viewer looks at NFL OT right now, they see who wins the coin toss and says "that's the game!" even if it necessarily isn't the case.

Plus it is preventative for the future - it would really suck to see any game decided by a FG 3 mins into OT, at least this way the other team gets a chance to respond.

I disagree...

[Hanna Sniper]

Not a fan of the rule, and hopefully it's kept far away from the regular season that we really only see it used very rarely.

The defence needs to step up and make a stand more then the rules need to be changed

[Sylvanfan]

Rumors that the Rams have tabled an offer to the Eagles to get McNabb for their 2nd round pick in the draft. McNabb willing to go if he gets a contract extension. The Rams have a lot of holes, and I don't know if they can patch enough of them up to take advantage of having a QB like McNabb.

[Bobblehead]

I like the new OT rule. If there is nothing to it then more team would kick off after winning the flip. The fact that they don't means there is probably a strong benefit to receiving, and since that is decided by a random coin flip it isn't a bad idea to try and take a bit of the luck out of it. Personally I would prefer to see it in for regular season as well.

What I find strange is that at least one of the reasons for not including it in the regular season is the concern about the additional number of snap that may need to be played. Yet there is talk about adding another game (or two) to the regular season? Well, are you worried about more snaps or not? I guess if you can soak your fans for more money then that is more important than the extra snaps.

[transplant99]

The fact that they don't means there is probably a strong benefit to receiving,

Nope.

11% of the games in NFL OT history were decided by a team scoring a FG on its first possesion

[Pagal4321]

Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports the Rams have offered the first pick of the second round and safety O.J. Atogwe, who is currently an unsigned restricted free agent.

[Sylvanfan]

Apparently Rams GM Billy Devanny or however you spell it shot that rumour down. It is Philly media and McNabb, so given Reids comments this morning, I'm sure a few of them are giddy to get Donovan out of town. Put McNabb on a team like the Niners and they'd be a hell of a lot better over night.

[rubecube]

Yeah, I don't really understand the Rams interest in McNabb. He's going to get killed behind that offensive line if he goes there.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nope.

Why would you only use playoff games?

... the owners were swayed by the argument that since 1994, teams that won the toss have won 59.8 percent of the overtime games and the team that lost the toss won only 38.5 percent of the time. The remaining 1.7 percent of games ended in a tie.

That is a pretty striking statistic. An almost 60% chance to win the game based on a coin flip.

The rule was fine before the kickoff was moved back 5 yards (so the receiving team can get better field position) and before kickers got much better at 40+ yard kicks.

From 1974 to 1993, there was no advantage in overtime to winning the coin toss, but moving the kickoff back to the 30-yard line and improved accuracy by kickers changed the balance.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/footb...ffect-playoffs


If you go back a few years (2004), there was a statistical analysis done:

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html


With the way they changed the rule, if you can get a touchdown on your first possession, you still win. All this does is minimize some of the bias introduced by previous rule changes.

[transplant99]

Why would you only use playoff games?

Ummm..because this rule as it is written right now only affects playoff games?

[Sylvanfan]

The current rumour out of Philly is that McNabb is wanting to be traded to Minnesota. If I'm the Vikings I'd think about it as McNabb is only 33 years old and won't put you through the retirement controversy annually. Although the Farve who played last year was a better player.