Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

djnemo65 · 01-08-2009, 06:35 PM

You hear a lot of people complaining about this recently, having an emotional, visceral reaction to Payton Manning "not even getting the ball" in the Chargers/Colts game. We need to find a way to give both offenses the ball, the argument goes. OK, let's ignore the fact that, as First correctly pointed out, the winner of the coin toss only goes on to win the game 53 percent of the time, which is not a statistically significant discrepancy. Let's ignore the fact that Payton had ample opportunities in regulation to win the game, and failed to make critical conversions and launch sustained scoring drives for the billionth time in the playoffs. And let’s ignore how silly it is to separate Payton from his defense, which buckled in overtime, as if they are not part of the same team. Let's take these complaints at face value.

It’s easy to criticize the current system but I have yet to hear a viable way of improving it. Every proposed fix offers to introduce more problems than the current system already has, imperfect as it may be. The college system is a joke - when you take field position and 2/3 of special teams out of football it's no longer football, we can agree on that right? - so that's out. Many suggest giving the second team a chance to match the first when the first team’s offense scores on their first possession, but this is a terrible idea and here’s why.　　Right now there is a small advantage for the team that wins the toss. Not statistically huge but it exists. This is evinced by the fact that the team that wins the coin toss always elects to receive the ball. In a system in which each team is guaranteed one possession you would see that flip, as teams would see a much greater advantage to going second. By electing to kick you would have the massive advantage of knowing whether you need a fieldgoal or TD to win, something that completely changes offensive strategy, and something which the first offense would not know. Big advantage. Moreover, by winning the toss you would effectively be letting your defense off the hook, while the other team’s defense still has the pressure of having to be perfect. Your defense goes out and gets scored on, you still have a chance to win. But if they make a big turnover or stop to get the ball in good field position, the other team gets no similar reprieve. So that 53/47 split you see now would be skewed way more unevenly…but hey, at least you would get to see Payton go out and get sacked one more time on third down

This ain’t beerpong, there’s no matching. Man up as a team and win the game. Recognize that, as a defense, if you can force a three and out you are going to give your offense good enough field position to win. I don’ t know when making 3 or 4 firstdowns and successfully converting a field goal became a given in the NFL, seems likes it’s kind of hard to me.

01-08-2009, 06:35 PM	#25
djnemo65 Playmaker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,836	Re: How would you change the overtime rules? You hear a lot of people complaining about this recently, having an emotional, visceral reaction to Payton Manning "not even getting the ball" in the Chargers/Colts game. We need to find a way to give both offenses the ball, the argument goes. OK, let's ignore the fact that, as First correctly pointed out, the winner of the coin toss only goes on to win the game 53 percent of the time, which is not a statistically significant discrepancy. Let's ignore the fact that Payton had ample opportunities in regulation to win the game, and failed to make critical conversions and launch sustained scoring drives for the billionth time in the playoffs. And let’s ignore how silly it is to separate Payton from his defense, which buckled in overtime, as if they are not part of the same team. Let's take these complaints at face value. It’s easy to criticize the current system but I have yet to hear a viable way of improving it. Every proposed fix offers to introduce more problems than the current system already has, imperfect as it may be. The college system is a joke - when you take field position and 2/3 of special teams out of football it's no longer football, we can agree on that right? - so that's out. Many suggest giving the second team a chance to match the first when the first team’s offense scores on their first possession, but this is a terrible idea and here’s why.　　Right now there is a small advantage for the team that wins the toss. Not statistically huge but it exists. This is evinced by the fact that the team that wins the coin toss always elects to receive the ball. In a system in which each team is guaranteed one possession you would see that flip, as teams would see a much greater advantage to going second. By electing to kick you would have the massive advantage of knowing whether you need a fieldgoal or TD to win, something that completely changes offensive strategy, and something which the first offense would not know. Big advantage. Moreover, by winning the toss you would effectively be letting your defense off the hook, while the other team’s defense still has the pressure of having to be perfect. Your defense goes out and gets scored on, you still have a chance to win. But if they make a big turnover or stop to get the ball in good field position, the other team gets no similar reprieve. So that 53/47 split you see now would be skewed way more unevenly…but hey, at least you would get to see Payton go out and get sacked one more time on third down This ain’t beerpong, there’s no matching. Man up as a team and win the game. Recognize that, as a defense, if you can force a three and out you are going to give your offense good enough field position to win. I don’ t know when making 3 or 4 firstdowns and successfully converting a field goal became a given in the NFL, seems likes it’s kind of hard to me.