• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2018 NFL Season ends: Patriots win Superbowl!

PhDeac said:
Some coaches would play for OT but that’s true already.

Under this system, a team with 1st and 10 from the 50 with 7 seconds left could attempt a Hail Mary and the defense would try to get a pick instead of knocking it down. If it’s just an incompletion, then the team could just run a regular 2nd down play.
Click to expand...

Can't edit, so just adding, I guess you are saying you take a risk for the win as opposed to playing for a safer chance at a lead in OT?
 
If the Chiefs didn't want OT then they should have gone for the win
 
buckets said:
If the Chiefs didn't want OT then they should have gone for the win
Click to expand...

Really what they should have done was to run down the clock when they had 1st and goal at the 3 after the Watkins catch when they were trailing. Instead, they ran it in on the first play and on the outside of the 2 min warning. They know that NE is going to let them score there (remember Ahmad Bradshaw trying not to fall into the end zone in the Super Bowl when he realized Belichick was letting him in?). If you give Brady the ball back you are losing, and everyone knows it. Running the clock and forcing them to burn timeouts is the only option there. Take two knees and you still have a chance to win on 3rd and/or tie on 4th. But Andy Reid is a clock moron so they predictably lost.
 
I don't see the downside of adopting the college OT system in the pros, it's fair and highly entertaining.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Really what they should have done was to run down the clock when they had 1st and goal at the 3 after the Watkins catch when they were trailing. Instead, they ran it in on the first play and on the outside of the 2 min warning. They know that NE is going to let them score there (remember Ahmad Bradshaw trying not to fall into the end zone in the Super Bowl when he realized Belichick was letting him in?). If you give Brady the ball back you are losing, and everyone knows it. Running the clock and forcing them to burn timeouts is the only option there. Take two knees and you still have a chance to win on 3rd and/or tie on 4th. But Andy Reid is a clock moron so they predictably lost.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Was surprised they ran the play prior to the 2 min warning.

I think the OT stuff was discussed earlier in this thread, and I still like the idea Simmons had on his pod (can't remember if actually his idea): keep the OT rules the same with one change - punting is no longer allowed. Makes taking the ball that much more of a risk. Wouldn't necessarily have changed the game last night, but makes the decision to take the ball a little bit more dicey.
 
I don't like the NFL overtime rules. Both teams should be given the opportunity to play offense. That said, it was obvious that Brady would pick apart the Chiefs. No pass rush...no chance.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Really what they should have done was to run down the clock when they had 1st and goal at the 3 after the Watkins catch when they were trailing. Instead, they ran it in on the first play and on the outside of the 2 min warning. They know that NE is going to let them score there (remember Ahmad Bradshaw trying not to fall into the end zone in the Super Bowl when he realized Belichick was letting him in?). If you give Brady the ball back you are losing, and everyone knows it. Running the clock and forcing them to burn timeouts is the only option there. Take two knees and you still have a chance to win on 3rd and/or tie on 4th. But Andy Reid is a clock moron so they predictably lost.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure no one in the history of the NFL has done what you suggest Any Reid is a moron for not doing. But, yeah, ultimately it would have been better to leave less clock for Brady.
 
rspDeac said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but why in the world would a team try a Hail Mary in that scenario? Wouldn't you just keep playing normally? Also why would a team attempt a 63 yard field goal as time expires? Any of those exciting plays at the end of a tie game disappears if I'm understanding your proposal correctly.
Click to expand...

“You play to win the game.”
 
The timing was pretty tough as to when KC was close to scoring, but I think rather than assume the Pats weren't going to score with 2 minutes left, try to eat as much clock as possible before scoring your TD would have been a better strategy. Perhaps Reid just assumed his crappy defense would give up a quick TD and give Mahomes one more chance under a minute which is what happened
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Really what they should have done was to run down the clock when they had 1st and goal at the 3 after the Watkins catch when they were trailing. Instead, they ran it in on the first play and on the outside of the 2 min warning. They know that NE is going to let them score there (remember Ahmad Bradshaw trying not to fall into the end zone in the Super Bowl when he realized Belichick was letting him in?). If you give Brady the ball back you are losing, and everyone knows it. Running the clock and forcing them to burn timeouts is the only option there. Take two knees and you still have a chance to win on 3rd and/or tie on 4th. But Andy Reid is a clock moron so they predictably lost.
Click to expand...

As it worked out giving Brady the ball ended up in a KC loss, but Brady did throw the game-losing interception in the final minute only to have it negated by a defensive offsides that had nothing to do with the play. Pittsburgh, who did not have a great defense this year, was able to stop the Pats and Brady on a final game-winning drive. FWIW, when the Chiefs were up 21-17, midway through the 4th quarter. I think they win the game if the reff doesn't call the phantom roughing the passer call on grazing Brady's shoulder pad. The Pats had not moved the ball much in the 2nd half at that point, and that call started the Patriots mojo going.
 
Brady would have just done the Brady thing with fewer timeouts. The chiefs would have scored, not a given you score so you do when you can, but assume they do and they also do it on fourth down so Brady has no timeouts. No timeouts, about minute 1:40 left I’m taking Brady every time and then the game doesn’t even go to overtime.
 
Pilchard said:
As it worked out giving Brady the ball ended up in a KC loss, but Brady did throw the game-losing interception in the final minute only to have it negated by a defensive offsides that had nothing to do with the play. Pittsburgh, who did not have a great defense this year, was able to stop the Pats and Brady on a final game-winning drive. FWIW, when the Chiefs were up 21-17, midway through the 4th quarter. I think they win the game if the reff doesn't call the phantom roughing the passer call on grazing Brady's shoulder pad. The Pats had not moved the ball much in the 2nd half at that point, and that call started the Patriots mojo going.
Click to expand...

Bad defenses do bad things. Whether it was an offsides on an INT or leaving a guy wide open down the sideline, KC's defense was going to let New England score on that drive one way or another.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I don't see the downside of adopting the college OT system in the pros, it's fair and highly entertaining.
Click to expand...

Puts too much value on the kickers IMO.

Though a few positives -- the NFL's elimination of kickoffs as a significant play supports the switch, not like you're losing much ditching those. And you don't win any field position advantage by winning the coin toss since you know where you're starting regardless
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Brady would have just done the Brady thing with fewer timeouts. The chiefs would have scored, not a given you score so you do when you can, but assume they do and they also do it on fourth down so Brady has no timeouts. No timeouts, about minute 1:40 left I’m taking Brady every time and then the game doesn’t even go to overtime.
Click to expand...

Correct. 1:50 is an absolute eternity in the NFL, even without any timeouts
 
Team with the offense that gains the most yards from scrimmage in regulation gets the ball first in OT.
 
I'm also OK with just continuing the game where it ended, at least in the playoffs (maybe not regular season to avoid teams playing for OT). And that's basically what happened yesterday - coin don't lie?
 
Tony Romo was money last night. He predicted what was about to happen 3, 4 or 5 times. I like him a lot better than "Hall of Famer" Troy Aiken who just seems to blather on an on, often over the next play
 
BlackjackMc said:
I don't like the NFL overtime rules. Both teams should be given the opportunity to play offense. That said, it was obvious that Brady would pick apart the Chiefs. No pass rush...no chance.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but this is my pet-peeve. What happens when you give KC the ball, then they score a TD? Can NE now win it on the next possession, without giving KC a second chance? If you are going to give KC one more shot on offense, you have to go all the way and adopt some version of the college rule where both teams get the ball an equal number of times until the tie is broken.

My other 2 cents on the college OT, they should either eliminate teams from going for it on 4th down, or take FG kicking out of the OT. As it is now, there is a 55 / 45 advantage to the teams that win the coin toss and goes on D. If the other team scores, they now have 4 downs per first down, to get a first down or score, where the first team on O generally only has 3 downs, then kicks the FG on 3rd down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top