Overtime rule

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

The Broncos had their chance....in regulation.

 

[scutterhawk]

No need to change the rule. Talk about taking the "sudden death" out of sudden death.

Yes, but this rule needs to be changed, and implemented for Peyton Manning's sake, that way, his ardent fans, and all those Media darlings who have their lips super glued to his buttocks will find some solace, eh?
His losing to the Seahawks goes down, but it just won't stay down.
HEY!!, I just had a great idea, why don't we do for him like they do for children in schools, we give him an achievement award, just so he won't feel left out.

 

[volsunghawk]

Since Peyton Manning joined the Broncos, he is 0-3 in overtime games. How many rules are they going to have to change to fix that? Maybe the new OT rule should just consist of continuing the game until Peyton has the lead. At that time play will be suspended and a "winner" declared. Interestingly enough, Tebow was 4-0 in overtime for Denver during his short career. Obviously the rule is fine. They just kept the wrong QB! :sarcasm_on:

I was only able to find 2 OT games for the Broncos that Manning has played, the one against us this past week and last year's game against the Pats. But yeah, both are losses. (EDIT: Turns out canfan is absolutely right and my search was wrong.)

In fact, Manning's record in OT with the Colts was 3-5, with all three wins coming in a stretch from 2002-2004. So Manning's all-time OT record is 3-7.

For comparison's sake, Wilson's all-time OT record is currently 4-0. Those 4 wins represent 33% of all of the Seahawks OT wins in franchise history (overall 12-21 record). Fun fact: Wilson has played 4 OT games in his just over 2-year old career. The Seahawks played 4 OT games in the entire decade of the 1980s (winning only one).

 

[canfan]

Awesome stat on RW! My 0-3 for Peyton came from the Stats and Info section in ESPN...can't say I looked it up myself!

 

[volsunghawk]

Awesome stat on RW! My 0-3 for Peyton came from the Stats and Info section in ESPN...can't say I looked it up myself!

No, turns out you're right and the Game Finder on PFR is missing the OT divisional round game against the Ravens from 2012 for some reason. It shows in the 2012 season results for the Broncos, but the Game Finder search isn't picking it up.

Manning is 0-3 with the Broncos and 3-8 all-time.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

They should treat overtime like a continuation of where they left off when the game ended. Same field position, same possession, same down and they just keep playing the fourth quarter until someone scores and the game ends.

No coin toss.

That would eliminate a lot of great, end-of-game action. I'd say no to that.

How so? They still have to tie the game up.

 

[Jeremy517]

Sudden death gave an advantage to the team that receives the kickoff.

Allowing the other team to attempt to match any (not just field goals) score gives an advantage to the team that kicks off, because they'll know when they have to go for it on fourth down.

For those two systems, one favors the receiving team, one favors the kicking team. The current system is an attempt to find a common ground between the two. There is not a large enough sample size of overtime games in the new system to know which side has an advantage.

Just because a team scores a TD on their first possession in OT does not mean that the system is not fair. If Denver had stopped Seattle from scoring, then Denver could have won the game with just a FG. Would it have been unfair to Seattle that Denver could win with just a FG? No. The advantage of getting the ball first is that you can win before the other team gets the ball. The advantage of getting the ball second is that you can win with just a FG.

 

[Laloosh]

I've yet to hear a single pundit point out that Bronco fans (or their fellow pundits) wouldn't be complaining had Denver won the toss and scored a TD. Not one.

Pretty hilarious actually.

 

[Jeremy517]

They should treat overtime like a continuation of where they left off when the game ended. Same field position, same possession, same down and they just keep playing the fourth quarter until someone scores and the game ends.

No coin toss.

That would eliminate a lot of great, end-of-game action. I'd say no to that.

How so? They still have to tie the game up.

In a tie game, there would be no pressure to score before time runs out in the fourth quarter, because they would know that they retain possession if the quarter runs out. The team would be able to take all the time they wanted.

 

[volsunghawk]

Sudden death gave an advantage to the team that receives the kickoff.

Allowing the other team to attempt to match any (not just field goals) score gives an advantage to the team that kicks off, because they'll know when they have to go for it on fourth down.

For those two systems, one favors the receiving team, one favors the kicking team. The current system is an attempt to find a common ground between the two. There is not a large enough sample size of overtime games in the new system to know which side has an advantage.

Just because a team scores a TD on their first possession in OT does not mean that the system is not fair. If Denver had stopped Seattle from scoring, then Denver could have won the game with just a FG. Would it have been unfair to Seattle that Denver could win with just a FG? No. The advantage of getting the ball first is that you can win before the other team gets the ball. The advantage of getting the ball second is that you can win with just a FG.

Excellent post.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Since Peyton Manning joined the Broncos, he is 0-3 in overtime games. How many rules are they going to have to change to fix that? Maybe the new OT rule should just consist of continuing the game until Peyton has the lead. At that time play will be suspended and a "winner" declared. Interestingly enough, Tebow was 4-0 in overtime for Denver during his short career. Obviously the rule is fine. They just kept the wrong QB! :sarcasm_on:

I was only able to find 2 OT games for the Broncos that Manning has played, the one against us this past week and last year's game against the Pats. But yeah, both are losses. (EDIT: Turns out canfan is absolutely right and my search was wrong.)

In fact, Manning's record in OT with the Colts was 3-5, with all three wins coming in a stretch from 2002-2004. So Manning's all-time OT record is 3-7.

For comparison's sake, Wilson's all-time OT record is currently 4-0. Those 4 wins represent 33% of all of the Seahawks OT wins in franchise history (overall 12-21 record). Fun fact: Wilson has played 4 OT games in his just over 2-year old career. The Seahawks played 4 OT games in the entire decade of the 1980s (winning only one).

He played the double overtime game against Baltimore in the playoffs and lost didn't he?

 

[themunn]

They should treat overtime like a continuation of where they left off when the game ended. Same field position, same possession, same down and they just keep playing the fourth quarter until someone scores and the game ends.

No coin toss.

That would eliminate a lot of great, end-of-game action. I'd say no to that.

How so? They still have to tie the game up.

There'd be literally no point in taking a timeout, it would open up the entire playbook for the 2 minute drill (instead of passing to the sidelines so you can either stop the clock with incompletions or stepping out of bounds). There'd be a MASSIVE advantage in kicking off in the first half rather than the 2nd.
It would change the 4th quarter as we know it. And if you drive to tie the game with 6 seconds left to go, you shouldn't be punished by the other team having the opportunity to take the ball and win it with a FG just because they were the one that happened to get the ball just as the clock expired.

A coin toss gives both sides a fair an equal opportunity to score with sudden death wins.

If you're going to change the rules so that both teams get a possession regardless of the type of score you have to change OT completely - you can't have it "the other team scores a TD so you have to score a TD or you lose", you have to take an extra time approach and play a full quarter and winner at the end wins it. But that doesn't work either, because it gives a massive advantage to the team that wins the coin toss, so you have to play 2 extra quarters so that both teams can receive the ball on an opening kickoff.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I've yet to hear a single pundit point out that Bronco fans (or their fellow pundits) wouldn't be complaining had Denver won the toss and scored a TD. Not one.

Pretty hilarious actually.

Denver fans certainly weren't complain about the overtime rules in 2012 when they beat Pittsburgh when Tebow hit Thomas for 80 yards the first play of overtime.

Amazing what losing does to a fan's opinion.

 

[dumbrabbit]

I keep hearing that Peyton said he called tails at the beginning of the game, and that he called tails again in OT but they lost it. Um, excuse me? Didn't they win the toss and choose to kickoff? So you're saying they should change the OT rules because your team won the toss and gave up on the Seahawks's OT drive?

http://www.king5.com/story/sports/nfl/s ... /16098421/

 

[Laloosh]

I've yet to hear a single pundit point out that Bronco fans (or their fellow pundits) wouldn't be complaining had Denver won the toss and scored a TD. Not one.

Pretty hilarious actually.

Denver fans certainly weren't complain about the overtime rules in 2012 when they beat Pittsburgh when Tebow hit Thomas for 80 yards the first play of overtime.

Amazing what losing does to a fan's opinion.

Dan Patrick finally said it!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Um, they were dominated in most of that game. The better team won, period. In fact, a couple bad plays gave them a shot to come back. 80 yard drive on 13 plays. Don't like the rules, stop it. Fricken babies.

 

[marymoorhawk]

I don't like the OT rule either. To be fair, both teams should have a shot

That being said, that's the current rule, Broncos knew they needed to stop the TD. Hawks earn the win.

+1

So then if the team who won the opening coin toss of the game gets one more possession during the game, and the game is within one score when the clock hits zero should the team that is behind get another possession to make it "fair" so they each get the ball an equal amount of times? I mean, the coin toss at the beginning of the game obviously decided things if one team gets one more possession because they won the flip, right?

Where does the quest to make things fair end?

The rule as it stands is fine - if the game is over after the 1st possession it means the winning team earned it by scoring a TD. I like the change they made in '12. And if the Hawks end up losing a game this year in the same fashion you won't hear me complaining about it being unfair.

 

[HawkFan72]

Eric Davis in NFL AM seems to be the only one to understand that Denver got their chance. Their defense did, and that means the team did.

Yeah and Davis hates the Hawks more than anybody else at that table (since he is a 49er at heart and isn't afraid to tell everyone about it). I was very shocked to hear that he actually was speaking objectively on the subject.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Peyton might have a point. I just don't think he realizes the point he is making.

Peyton essentially is saying that the coin flip determines the game, because the team that wins the toss has an unreasonable advantage to go down the field and score a TD, removing the ability of the other team to answer.

That would only be the case if the ability to score a TD was essentially expected.

And considering all the disadvantages to the defense that have been put in place to please Peyton (since he could not win on his own without the rule changes, and barely could perform in the playoffs so far even WITH them), it is unreasonable to expect the defense in the NFL to be able to stop an offense in a sudden death scenario because the offense should score more than 50% of the time. (Otherwise the breakdown would be fair, right?)

So Peyton is saying that the current rule structure makes it too difficult to expect a defense could play a reasonable defense, and thus the team on offense first has a natural advantage.

He might be right, but the damned thing is his fault that football has morphed into neutering almost all the defense so the clueless average fan can enjoy the fireworks and the hopped up fantasy stats.

I have no respect for him. He wouldn't have even won the first SB, much less get to one without constantly lobbying (and his owner constantly lobbying) for rules that make him seem to be a better player than he is.

What he is happens to be a player that does well when it doesn't matter but falls short when it does. And then does everything he can to change the rules to make up for his inability to get it done.

 

[marymoorhawk]

I went through and looked at every overtime game played under the current system, which was implemented in the postseason for 2010 and 2011 and expanded to the regular season in 2012.

44 overtime games have been played during that span. Out of those 44 games, only SEVEN times did the team winning the coin toss drive down and score a game-winning TD without the other team touching the ball:

Broncos 29, Steelers 23 1/8/12
Colts 19, Titans 13 10/28/12
Bucs 27, Panthers 21 11/18/12
Seahawks 23, Bears 17 12/2/12
Texans 30, Titans 24 9/15/13
Redskins 30, Chargers 24 11/3/13
Seahawks 26, Broncos 20 9/21/14

Winner of game LOST coin toss:

Seahawks 23, Texans 20 9/23/13
Jets 30, Patriots 27 10/20/13
Seahawks 27, Buccaneers 24 11/3/13
Bears 23, Ravens 20 11/17/13
Vikings 26, Packers 26 11/24/13
Patriots 34, Broncos 31 11/24/13
Vikings 23, Bears 20 12/1/13
Falcons 34, Bills 31 12/1/13
Cardinals 37, Titans 34 12/15/13

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/scoreboar ... ekNumber=1

(edited to fix Giants-Lions game)

I did some slicing and dicing to show one thing ... I friggin' love Russell Wilson.

What is the one constant in all of this? Win or lose the coin flip - we win either way.

We win the toss, Russell will find a way to deliver the win. We lose the toss, D will hold and Russell will find a way to deliver the win.

Maybe Bronco fans can petition to have him removed from the league. Its obviously not fair!