Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webny99]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

[1995hoo]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

[jeffandnicole]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

[webny99]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

[NWI_Irish96]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

[webny99]

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

The rule change only applies to the playoffs, at least for this season.

There's been 4 full seasons since the shortening of overtime: 2018 had two ties, and 2019, 20, and 21 each had one tie.

[1995hoo]

Wait, what? The ref expressly explained yesterday that if the team that possessed the ball first (turned out to be the Giants) scored a field goal on the first possession, the game would not end and the other team would get to possess the ball. The game ends on the first possession only if the offense scores a touchdown, there is a turnover leading to a defensive score, or there is a safety. That applies both to the regular season and the playoffs. Are you talking about some other rule change?

[webny99]

Wait, what? The ref expressly explained yesterday that if the team that possessed the ball first (turned out to be the Giants) scored a field goal on the first possession, the game would not end and the other team would get to possess the ball. The game ends on the first possession only if the offense scores a touchdown, there is a turnover leading to a defensive score, or there is a safety.

Yes, that part is all correct for a regular season game...

That applies both to the regular season and the playoffs. Are you talking about some other rule change?

The rule change that applies only to the playoffs is that a touchdown on the first possession no longer ends the game. Both teams are now guaranteed an offensive possession.

[gr8daynegb]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

I'd agree.  Being that many teams will try and have an extended drive if they win the toss and in turn milking the clock I'm surprised there hasn't been 3+ ties in a season.  With scoring rules never quite got the NFL shortening the OT period

[jeffandnicole]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

I'd agree.  Being that many teams will try and have an extended drive if they win the toss and in turn milking the clock I'm surprised there hasn't been 3+ ties in a season.  With scoring rules never quite got the NFL shortening the OT period

Player safety to not endure another 15 minute period. How many injuries occurred in the final 5 minutes may be debatable, but they shortened the OT to reduce that risk.

[1995hoo]

Wait, what? The ref expressly explained yesterday that if the team that possessed the ball first (turned out to be the Giants) scored a field goal on the first possession, the game would not end and the other team would get to possess the ball. The game ends on the first possession only if the offense scores a touchdown, there is a turnover leading to a defensive score, or there is a safety.

Yes, that part is all correct for a regular season game...

That applies both to the regular season and the playoffs. Are you talking about some other rule change?

The rule change that applies only to the playoffs is that a touchdown on the first possession no longer ends the game. Both teams are now guaranteed an offensive possession.

OK, thanks. NWI_Irish96 didn't mention that rule in the post I was quoting and that's why I got confused as to what you meant:

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

[gr8daynegb]

They're definitely both in the running for the 7th seed. In fact, they were 6th and 7th before the Seahawks won this afternoon to bump the Commanders down to 8th. So, this did very little to change the playoff odds. It will just put even more weight on the Week 15 matchup, but the tie could help both teams get in if the Seahawks fall back a game.

If WAS lost today, their seeding would be the same.  WAS & SEA don't play each other this year, so it would come down, most likely, to their records within the conference or against common opponents.  At least currently, in my view the tie hurts WAS more than helps.

I see it as a built-in tiebreaker for Washington. Now, it won't come down to other tiebreakers with Seattle because the tie will ensure they don't finish with the same record, and they only have to finish a half-game ahead instead of a full game.

There's still 5 weeks left in the season.  Seattle can still play to a tie in any of those upcoming games.

OK, so it's not a guarantee they won't finish with the same record, but it's highly unlikely. There's never been 3 ties in a season in the sudden-death overtime era.

Yes, but the recent rule changes that make it not sudden death if a FG is scored on the first drive and the shortening to 10 minutes make comparisons to seasons before then less relevant. I think we'll see a 3+ tie season before too long if not this year.

I'd agree.  Being that many teams will try and have an extended drive if they win the toss and in turn milking the clock I'm surprised there hasn't been 3+ ties in a season.  With scoring rules never quite got the NFL shortening the OT period

Player safety to not endure another 15 minute period. How many injuries occurred in the final 5 minutes may be debatable, but they shortened the OT to reduce that risk.

Which if both teams got a possession (assuming a game ending score didn't happen) doesn't make the most sense as thing two teams running normal offense in a 15 minute OT better for player safety than some of the weirdness we see in these 10 minute overtimes where desperation attempts expose players to potentially worse hits.  Could argue forever about player safety about what works and doesn't for all the rule changes in game and how teams are/aren't allowed to practice.  I'm more curious how players that are talking about having all fields be natural grass think that'll be realistic for teams in northern climates.  Are they going to partner on the cost to have an under-field system like in Lambeau in northern climates or make stadium conversions in other mostly norther stadiums that will allow grass to grow in domed fields.  It's not impossible, but the players asking for it make it sound like that's a simple fix when there will be a lot that goes into doing that in reality.   

[jeffandnicole]

I'd agree.  Being that many teams will try and have an extended drive if they win the toss and in turn milking the clock I'm surprised there hasn't been 3+ ties in a season.  With scoring rules never quite got the NFL shortening the OT period

Player safety to not endure another 15 minute period. How many injuries occurred in the final 5 minutes may be debatable, but they shortened the OT to reduce that risk.

Which if both teams got a possession (assuming a game ending score didn't happen) doesn't make the most sense as thing two teams running normal offense in a 15 minute OT better for player safety than some of the weirdness we see in these 10 minute overtimes where desperation attempts expose players to potentially worse hits.  Could argue forever about player safety about what works and doesn't for all the rule changes in game and how teams are/aren't allowed to practice.  I'm more curious how players that are talking about having all fields be natural grass think that'll be realistic for teams in northern climates.  Are they going to partner on the cost to have an under-field system like in Lambeau in northern climates or make stadium conversions in other mostly norther stadiums that will allow grass to grow in domed fields.  It's not impossible, but the players asking for it make it sound like that's a simple fix when there will be a lot that goes into doing that in reality.   

If the OT was still a 15 minute period: A desperation playcall is optional; playing a tie game until 15 minutes is up is mandatory.

I'm not sure how much the NFL chips in to the teams now for mandatory improvements, if any.  It's probably a part of the shared money each team gets.  Things like security, for example, requires teams to upgrade their monitoring equipment fairly often, and sometimes in mid-season if something requires an immediate change.  Changing a grass field in a current grass turf stadium occurs every several years anyway.  Ripping out artificial turf for grass is a little more involved, and pricey, but compared to what the teams pay certain players, it's just another improvement to the stadium.  There's other ways to keep grass growing in the wintertime in northern climates - many football stadiums use enormous tarps to cover the field, with heaters blowing heat underneath to keep that grass and sod warm.

[ilpt4u]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

I don’t think NBC would appreciate a second tie, now that the 2nd game in W15 got flexed to SNF by the NFL today

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Week-15-Flex-Scheduling---Giants-Commanders-Moves-to-Sunday-Night-Football.aspx

[mgk920]

Wait, what? The ref expressly explained yesterday that if the team that possessed the ball first (turned out to be the Giants) scored a field goal on the first possession, the game would not end and the other team would get to possess the ball. The game ends on the first possession only if the offense scores a touchdown, there is a turnover leading to a defensive score, or there is a safety. That applies both to the regular season and the playoffs. Are you talking about some other rule change?

In the regular season, if the team with the ball first scores a TD or the team on defense first scores a safety or a defensive TD, the game is over.  If the team with the ball first scores a FG, the ether team gets a chance with the ball on offense.  If the score is still tied after those two possessions, it is sudden death until ten minutes have elapsed, after which the game is recorded as a draw (1/2 win, 1/2 loss).

Mike

[1995hoo]

Wait, what? The ref expressly explained yesterday that if the team that possessed the ball first (turned out to be the Giants) scored a field goal on the first possession, the game would not end and the other team would get to possess the ball. The game ends on the first possession only if the offense scores a touchdown, there is a turnover leading to a defensive score, or there is a safety. That applies both to the regular season and the playoffs. Are you talking about some other rule change?

In the regular season, if the team with the ball first scores a TD or the team on defense first scores a safety or a defensive TD, the game is over.  If the team with the ball first scores a FG, the ether team gets a chance with the ball on offense.  If the score is still tied after those two possessions, it is sudden death until ten minutes have elapsed, after which the game is recorded as a draw (1/2 win, 1/2 loss).

Mike

Yes, I know. That's what I said. If you look back up the thread, you'll see it turns out webny99 was referring to a different rule that was not the one mentioned in the post to which I was responding.

[webny99]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

I don’t think NBC would appreciate a second tie, now that the 2nd game in W15 got flexed to SNF by the NFL today

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Week-15-Flex-Scheduling---Giants-Commanders-Moves-to-Sunday-Night-Football.aspx

As part of this, Pats-Raiders has been flexed back to 4:05 ET. That's somewhat surprising, since Pats-Raiders is a pretty important game too. 
The preceding Saturday tripleheader has also been announced: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-announces-week-15-saturday-triple-header-on-nfl-network

Then Week 16 will have the majority of games played on Saturday and a tripleheader on Christmas Day, so there will be plenty of island games to go around before the new year.

[ilpt4u]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

I don’t think NBC would appreciate a second tie, now that the 2nd game in W15 got flexed to SNF by the NFL today

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Week-15-Flex-Scheduling---Giants-Commanders-Moves-to-Sunday-Night-Football.aspx

As part of this, Pats-Raiders has been flexed back to 4:05 ET. That's somewhat surprising, since Pats-Raiders is a pretty important game too. 
The preceding Saturday tripleheader has also been announced: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-announces-week-15-saturday-triple-header-on-nfl-network

Then Week 16 will have the majority of games played on Saturday and a tripleheader on Christmas Day, so there will be plenty of island games to go around before the new year.

Patriots-Raiders, once selected to be flexed out of of SNF for an NFC East clash with the #1 Media market involved, had to go somewhere

It couldn’t be one of the 3 Saturday games because 1) It was not previously identified as one of the 5 games that could be put on Saturday 17 Dec And 2) Allegiant Stadium hosts the Las Vegas Bowl on Saturday Dec 17th

That leaves Sunday. Since Las Vegas is in the Pacific TZ, home games cannot be played in the “Early” 1 PM ET window. So that leaves either Singleheader Late @4:05 on FOX or Doubleheader Late @4:25 on CBS. CBS wants to send Bengals/Bucs to most of the country as the Doubleheader Lead game featuring Nantz, Romo, and Wolfson, and already has an Undercard game in Titans/Chargers. FOX only had Cards/Broncos originally at 4:05, and now has a better game for markets that need a Late game (typically markets that the “home” team plays in the 1 PM Early window on the Doubleheader network so likely Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Kansas City, Houston, Detroit, and NYC, in addition to markets of interest for that particular game). Hence why Pats/Raiders ended up at 4:05

[thspfc]

Panthers cutting Baker. It’s gonna be interesting to see if/when/where he’s picked up as a backup. What a falloff, and it’s a unique one in that it’s entirely due to poor play on the field, and not age-related. Most of the time when someone goes from solid starter to irrelevance in two years, it’s because of age or bad decisions off the field.

[Roadgeekteen]

Panthers cutting Baker. It’s gonna be interesting to see if/when/where he’s picked up as a backup. What a falloff, and it’s a unique one in that it’s entirely due to poor play on the field, and not age-related. Most of the time when someone goes from solid starter to irrelevance in two years, it’s because of age or bad decisions off the field.

If he can't even beat out Sam Darnold he should never get a starting job in the NFL again.

[webny99]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

I don’t think NBC would appreciate a second tie, now that the 2nd game in W15 got flexed to SNF by the NFL today

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Week-15-Flex-Scheduling---Giants-Commanders-Moves-to-Sunday-Night-Football.aspx

As part of this, Pats-Raiders has been flexed back to 4:05 ET. That's somewhat surprising, since Pats-Raiders is a pretty important game too. 
The preceding Saturday tripleheader has also been announced: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-announces-week-15-saturday-triple-header-on-nfl-network

Then Week 16 will have the majority of games played on Saturday and a tripleheader on Christmas Day, so there will be plenty of island games to go around before the new year.

Patriots-Raiders, once selected to be flexed out of of SNF for an NFC East clash with the #1 Media market involved, had to go somewhere

It couldn’t be one of the 3 Saturday games because 1) It was not previously identified as one of the 5 games that could be put on Saturday 17 Dec And 2) Allegiant Stadium hosts the Las Vegas Bowl on Saturday Dec 17th

That leaves Sunday. Since Las Vegas is in the Pacific TZ, home games cannot be played in the “Early” 1 PM ET window. So that leaves either Singleheader Late @4:05 on FOX or Doubleheader Late @4:25 on CBS.  [...]

Yes, totally understood on all of that. I wasn't surprised that it was flexed to the 4:05 timeslot (that's the only logical spot, as you outlined). I was mostly just surprised that it got flexed out of SNF, period. Giants-Commanders is worthy of a prime time slot too, but it was one of the better Saturday options so they could have put it at 4:30 or 8:15 on Saturday and left Ravens-Browns or Colts-Vikings on Sunday since those games aren't as important, with the Browns and Colts likely on the fringes or out of the race entirely by then.

[TheHighwayMan394]

What would be funny is if Washington and New York play to another tie two weeks from now. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure no team has ever had two ties in one season since the 1974 adoption of regular-season overtime, although a couple of teams have come close.)

I don’t think NBC would appreciate a second tie, now that the 2nd game in W15 got flexed to SNF by the NFL today

https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Week-15-Flex-Scheduling---Giants-Commanders-Moves-to-Sunday-Night-Football.aspx

As part of this, Pats-Raiders has been flexed back to 4:05 ET. That's somewhat surprising, since Pats-Raiders is a pretty important game too. 

It's not really that surprising. Despite their mirage of a late season push the Raiders stink and they still have a major uphill battle ahead with only 5 games left and being behind three teams they need to leap over for the #7 seed with the Jets and Patriots both holding the conference record tiebreakers over the Raiders as of today.

[webny99]

Yes, to be clear I am by no means disputing that Giants-Commanders is a better and more important game, but I do think Pats-Raiders is better than 2 of the 3 Saturday games.

[Henry]

It took 100 years, but da Bears just fell from the top of the all-time wins list. And that it happened against their most hated rival hurt a lot too.

[skluth]

I'm a Packers fan and the all-time wins was always something that irked me because the Bears rarely sucked under Halas while the Pack sucked for most of the time after WWII until Favre and Holmgren though the decade under Lombardi made up for a lot of that. The Bears had a huge lead in the rivalry at the end of the 1980s. Still, it's something that's going to be a Packers or Bears thing for a while because only the Cards, Giants, and Lions are also about that old they've all had significantly more lean times than the Pack and Bears.