Octopus Overlords

With 13 seconds left a pooch kick forces the team to handle the ball and take time off the clock. A botched catch or someone getting brave could even end the game. That's bad coaching.

I bet there would still be someone complaining.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:53 am

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:47 amI've never quite understood why it's somehow more physically taxing for defensive players to run in coverage than it is for the offensive players to run their routes.

If you're equally tired, but you're on the side who *doesn't* know what the play is going to be, you're at a disadvantage.

I think it's a bit of a sports cliche, but, offensive players tend to get more rest than defensive players. Starting safeties, corners, and two of three linebackers play nearly 100% of defensive snaps. On offense only the #1 WR and TE come close to those numbers. (linemen and QBs ignored for these purposes).

Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:00 pm With 13 seconds left a pooch kick forces the team to handle the ball and take time off the clock. A botched catch or someone getting brave could even end the game. That's bad coaching.

A pooch kick led to the Music City Miracle. Kicking out the back of the end zone removed all variables. You know exactly what you have to do, before you even kick. The cost of that knowledge is either 4 seconds or 15 yards. The first play, prevent isn’t great, but you literally just got torched for a TD on your last defensive snap because all the DBs were in man coverage downfield. They were a little too soft, but that wasn’t the back breaker. The second play was simply terrible. Why are you defending the sideline when the chiefs have a timeout? They actually got immediate pressure on Mahomes, but they gave up inside leverage to Kelce and a clean release. I would have lined Milano up on Kelce and hit him at the snap, and then run with him on the inside (So you’ve got a bracket on him). Sliding Milano into the middle was utterly useless.

As for the OT rules. From a football perspective, I have no problem with the rules per se. the “just play defense” is stupid because only one team has to just play defense. The team winning the coin toss in playoff games under these rules has lost once. They *always* win. And therein lies the problem. From a football perspective, I get it. From a product perspective, it’s the dumbest system imaginable.

But I don’t know how to fix it. The Bills lost because they allowed it to get to overtime in a situation that should never have come to pass.

I just keep telling myself that Steve Young needed three cracks at the Cowboys to break through. Peyton lost to the Pats six times before he finally beat them. I don’t know if I can handle that, but what else am I supposed to do? I will root for Josh Allen until the moment he retires. That is no longer optional.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:26 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:00 pm With 13 seconds left a pooch kick forces the team to handle the ball and take time off the clock. A botched catch or someone getting brave could even end the game. That's bad coaching.

A pooch kick led to the Music City Miracle. Kicking out the back of the end zone removed all variables.

One anecdote from 20 years ago does not make it a bad strategy. With a touchback you guarantee Mahomes will be set to go from the 25 without chaos and his full 13 seconds. As the game proved this is not optimal strategy.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:26 pm As for the OT rules. From a football perspective, I have no problem with the rules per se. the “just play defense” is stupid because only one team has to just play defense. The team winning the coin toss in playoff games under these rules has lost once. They *always* win. And therein lies the problem. From a football perspective, I get it. From a product perspective, it’s the dumbest system imaginable.

I don't see how the "just play defense" is less stupid if both teams have to play it. Say both teams give up TDs - now a team STILL has to "just play defense" or they lose. You're kicking the can down the road - it doesn't change anything.

Out of 11 playoff games, the team than wins the toss won 7 on the first drive. Of the remaining 4, both teams got to touch the ball and the coin toss team still won 3 and lost 1. This seems to just be small sample size bias as over all the overtime games under these rules, the coin toss team only wins 53% of the time.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:26 pm The team winning the coin toss in playoff games under these rules has lost once. They *always* win. And therein lies the problem.

Side note: that one loss was the Saints game against the Rams when they got absolutely screwed by the no pass interference call.

stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:38 am Out of 11 playoff games, the team than wins the toss won 7 on the first drive. Of the remaining 4, both teams got to touch the ball and the coin toss team still won 3 and lost 1. This seems to just be small sample size bias as over all the overtime games under these rules, the coin toss team only wins 53% of the time.

It is a small sample size, but generally the teams in the playoffs have better QBs and a better offense in total than the average team in the regular season. I would be interested to know the regular season percentage of first possession coin toss wins when the coin toss winner has, say, a top 10 QB. I'm guessing it's higher than 53%.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:11 am

stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:38 am Out of 11 playoff games, the team than wins the toss won 7 on the first drive. Of the remaining 4, both teams got to touch the ball and the coin toss team still won 3 and lost 1. This seems to just be small sample size bias as over all the overtime games under these rules, the coin toss team only wins 53% of the time.

It is a small sample size, but generally the teams in the playoffs have better QBs and a better offense in total than the average team in the regular season. I would be interested to know the regular season percentage of first possession coin toss wins when the coin toss winner has, say, a top 10 QB. I'm guessing it's higher than 53%.

I mean, they also have better defenses than the average team in the regular season, so I'm not sure that gets you anywhere.

Jaymann wrote:One anecdote from 20 years ago does not make it a bad strategy. With a touchback you guarantee Mahomes will be set to go from the 25 without chaos and his full 13 seconds. As the game proved this is not optimal strategy.

If I can’t use one anecdote from 20 years ago, you can’t use one anecdote from Sunday night. No single example “proves” whether something is an optimal strategy, because optimal strategies fail too.

The MCM is a stark reminder of the risk involved with putting the ball in play, in a return situation. When kicking deep there is no risk of losing the game on that play. On the next play, the prevent defense dramatically reduced the risk of losing the game on that play.

On the final play, the defense dramatically INCREASED the risk of losing the game on that play. One of those three things is not like the other. And sure, if you accept the risk on the kickoff and it works, maybe there is no next play to botch. That’s one of the possible outcomes, but not a certainty.

That said, McDermott strongly seemed to suggest today that they did not intend to kick that ball deep. He’s not blaming anyone by name, but is very disappointed in the execution of the team on that kickoff. If they were told to kick deep, they executed perfectly. So I’m not sure what he means.

If he means that Bass fucked it up, I would much rather that he didn’t say that, and that he just ate the blame and pretended that he made the decision to kick deep. It was a very disappointing answer (in my view).

stessier wrote:I don't see how the "just play defense" is less stupid if both teams have to play it. Say both teams give up TDs - now a team STILL has to "just play defense" or they lose. You're kicking the can down the road - it doesn't change anything.

I didn’t suggest any fix, so I’m not kicking any cans anywhere.

I don’t think the argument is less stupid under those circumstances. In the playoffs, “just playing defense” against playoff caliber QBs, after 60 minutes, in a game whose rules heavily favor the offense - is substantially more difficult than “just playing offense”.

The winner of the coin toss gets to “just play offense”, while the loser has to “just play defense”. More than half of the time, the team just playing offense has scored a TD. If they don’t score a TD, then they usually have either attempted a FG or they punt. If they punted, there’s at least a chance that they put the opposing defense deep in their own end (which levels the just play offense vs just play defense odds - the team that just had to play defense might be in a much worse position for their chance to just play offense).

If the two teams match scores (0-0, 3-3), then we are back at square one with the team that won the coin toss having a massive advantage again (because now they just need a FG). None of that changes simply by saying that the first score won’t end it. The problem is sudden death itself. That’s what makes the product worse. In my opinion, the only sports where I think that sudden death makes sense is hockey and soccer, because it’s the same people playing offense and defense at the same time.

What do we see when a team wins the coin toss for OT? Mass jubilation by that team and their fans. Because they know that it’s almost certain that they’ve won the game.

That’s why it ends up being a worse product, even if the “football argument” makes logical sense (I don’t think it does, but many people do).

This game was worse as a product because Allen couldn’t respond. The 2018 KC/NE game was a worse product because Mahomes couldn’t respond.

That doesn’t mean that I’m complaining about the rules or that I think they should be changed or anything like that. I don’t think the Bills lost because they lost a coin flip. The Bills lost because they allowed the coin to be flipped.

But as a product, in games like this, it’s a lesser product because of the OT rules.

stessier wrote:I mean, they also have better defenses than the average team in the regular season, so I'm not sure that gets you anywhere.

Most defenses wear down after 60 minutes of playing. And in a league where the rules are also heavily against you, the disparity just gets worse.

The 11 game sample size only covers since 2010 when the rule was tweaked. It was just as bad before that. So the actual sample size is substantial and the advantage to the winner of the coin toss is massive. The 11 game sample size is just suggesting that there is no evidence that the 2010 rule change made any difference when it comes to the playoffs.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:52 am

Jaymann wrote:One anecdote from 20 years ago does not make it a bad strategy. With a touchback you guarantee Mahomes will be set to go from the 25 without chaos and his full 13 seconds. As the game proved this is not optimal strategy.

If I can’t use one anecdote from 20 years ago, you can’t use one anecdote from Sunday night. No single example “proves” whether something is an optimal strategy, because optimal strategies fail too.

Agreed, but the difference is MCM was essentially a freak play with virtually no chance of a recurrence, whereas handing the ball to Mahomes (arguably the best QB in the league) with the most time available is inferior strategy.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:57 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:52 am

Jaymann wrote:One anecdote from 20 years ago does not make it a bad strategy. With a touchback you guarantee Mahomes will be set to go from the 25 without chaos and his full 13 seconds. As the game proved this is not optimal strategy.

If I can’t use one anecdote from 20 years ago, you can’t use one anecdote from Sunday night. No single example “proves” whether something is an optimal strategy, because optimal strategies fail too.

Agreed, but the difference is MCM was essentially a freak play with virtually no chance of a recurrence, whereas handing the ball to Mahomes (arguably the best QB in the league) with the most time available is inferior strategy.

Wasn't it essentially a cross-field throwback? The University of Michigan special teams did one of those this year for a TD.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:28 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:57 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:52 am

Jaymann wrote:One anecdote from 20 years ago does not make it a bad strategy. With a touchback you guarantee Mahomes will be set to go from the 25 without chaos and his full 13 seconds. As the game proved this is not optimal strategy.

If I can’t use one anecdote from 20 years ago, you can’t use one anecdote from Sunday night. No single example “proves” whether something is an optimal strategy, because optimal strategies fail too.

Agreed, but the difference is MCM was essentially a freak play with virtually no chance of a recurrence, whereas handing the ball to Mahomes (arguably the best QB in the league) with the most time available is inferior strategy.

Wasn't it essentially a cross-field throwback? The University of Michigan special teams did one of those this year for a TD.

Yes, so successful once every 20 years.

Local PD getting in on the fun...

ImLawBoy wrote:Wasn't it essentially a cross-field throwback? The University of Michigan special teams did one of those this year for a TD.

I have no idea why there is a fixation on the specific details of the MCM. I brought it up because for Bills fans it is a stark reminder of an important reality - if you kick the ball into the field of play, there is a chance that they return the ball for a TD. It doesn’t need to be a home run throwback. It can be any sort of return for a TD.

And if you asked me at that moment in time, I would have said that was more likely than even Mahomes gaining 50 yards in 10 seconds.

A guy on the cover team can fall down or get out of his lane. The Chiefs could have a weird return cooked up for this type of situation and they are prepared to deploy it.

As I noted, it seems that the instructions given to the kicker may have been to go high and drop this ball around the 5 yard line, and he did not successfully do that. So McDermott seemed willing to accept that risk in this situation, but Bass put too much leg into it.

And in watching that last play again, I would be stunned if Levi Wallace was asked to leave Kelce free and run away from him to protect the sideline, given that Kelce was the only receiver on his side of the field. So that might have been a blown coverage too, I don’t know.

Whatever it was - coaching/execution/both - FIX. IT.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:03 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:Wasn't it essentially a cross-field throwback? The University of Michigan special teams did one of those this year for a TD.

I have no idea why there is a fixation on the specific details of the MCM.

I'm certainly not fixated on it. I just thought Jaymann's comment calling it a "freak play with virtually no chance of a recurrence" was odd since it's not all that uncommon of a play in the world of return team trick plays (which is, granted, a relatively small world). It doesn't always go for a TD, but I've certainly seen other occurrences of it that have gotten nice returns. I don't that qualifies as a fixation.

I was talking about him acting like I was specifically worried about THAT play, rather than noting that there is a risk every time you put the ball in play, even on a kickoff.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:42 pm I was talking about him acting like I was specifically worried about THAT play, rather than noting that there is a risk every time you put the ball in play, even on a kickoff.

Of course there is some risk, but if the Chiefs try to get too cute and don't actually score, the clock can run out or leave like 4 seconds and out of field goal range.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:06 pm None of that changes simply by saying that the first score won’t end it. The problem is sudden death itself. That’s what makes the product worse.

Ah - this is where we diverge. I love sudden death.

stessier wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:39 am

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:06 pm None of that changes simply by saying that the first score won’t end it. The problem is sudden death itself. That’s what makes the product worse.

Ah - this is where we diverge. I love sudden death.

Me too. I know it's a bit of a false dichotomy, but I get so aggravated when soccer games end in a penalty shootout. Mini-games shouldn't decide major events.

About the only change I'd like to see is no extra points. Go ahead and let both teams have an equal number of possessions, but everyone has to go for two. It's then unlikely to have college football style overtimes.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:17 am Me too. I know it's a bit of a false dichotomy, but I get so aggravated when soccer games end in a penalty shootout. Mini-games shouldn't decide major events.

I also hate penalty shots in soccer and think it should be sudden death. But soccer is a very different than football. Unlike in football, the chance that the team first touching the ball scores without the other team touching the ball is almost negligible in soccer.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:09 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:17 am Me too. I know it's a bit of a false dichotomy, but I get so aggravated when soccer games end in a penalty shootout. Mini-games shouldn't decide major events.

I also hate penalty shots in soccer and think it should be sudden death. But soccer is a very different than football. Unlike in football, the chance that the team first touching the ball scores without the other team touching the ball is almost negligible in soccer.

Also soccer is a lot more physically demanding and is usually the same players on the field most of the game. Longer overtime situations isn't really practical there.

Also hate penalties, but I have never met one soccer fan that does TBH.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:17 am About the only change I'd like to see is no extra points. Go ahead and let both teams have an equal number of possessions, but everyone has to go for two. It's then unlikely to have college football style overtimes.

It would likely reduce the chance a bit, college did have the rule that everyone had to go for 2 after 2 OTs, and they still ended up with games going 5+ OTs. That's why they changed the rule to the stupid 2-point shootout that's in place now after 2 OTs.

I wouldn't mind the NFL going to immediate 2 point shootouts from further away each time. It will never happen, but would be quick and exciting.

I didn't read the article with the 11 alternatives for OT, so I don't know if this was included. At first I thought it sounded really stupid - and it kind of is - but the more I think about it, the more fun it sounds. They could never do it as described because they don't have enough officials (or the officials would get an amazing workout running down the field after every play), but it would be entertaining.

It sounds fun but no owner would ever vote to pass that.

Sudden death makes sense in hockey and soccer (to me), because there isn’t an inherent advantage caused by putting completely different elements of your team on the field.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:00 pm It sounds fun but no owner would ever vote to pass that.

Sudden death makes sense in hockey and soccer (to me), because there isn’t an inherent advantage caused by putting completely different elements of your team on the field.

Hockey OT is now five minutes of 3-on-3 before a shootout. I'd say that's completely different elements of your team.

My overtime solution is a little simpler. Same rules as now except the touchdown doesn't automatically win the game. Kick the extra point, the other team gets the ball on a kickoff. Make the two point conversion, you win. Miss it, kickoff. Obviously, a touchdown and extra point would then end the game.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:11 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:00 pm It sounds fun but no owner would ever vote to pass that.

Sudden death makes sense in hockey and soccer (to me), because there isn’t an inherent advantage caused by putting completely different elements of your team on the field.

Hockey OT is now five minutes of 3-on-3 before a shootout. I'd say that's completely different elements of your team.

That's only regular season though, right? Playoffs is still to the death?

stessier wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:00 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:11 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:00 pm It sounds fun but no owner would ever vote to pass that.

Sudden death makes sense in hockey and soccer (to me), because there isn’t an inherent advantage caused by putting completely different elements of your team on the field.

Hockey OT is now five minutes of 3-on-3 before a shootout. I'd say that's completely different elements of your team.

That's only regular season though, right? Playoffs is still to the death?

Yes. No matter how long it takes.

Oooh, what if they played sudden death rugby for overtime?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Home Run Derby. Let's see some dingers!

Timed team Wordle seems like the best bet.

They can do the coin flip with one of Drazzil's one sided coins - psyche!

OR....

Just got an ESPN alert that Brady is retiring. 22 years and 7 rings is an ok run, I guess.

Our long national nightmare is over.

And the Bucs could go from first to worst.