Print

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

[jgb191]

Regarding overtime, defense is part of the game too, not just offense.

Exactly my point: the winner of coin toss needs to play their defense too at least once, not just their opponent.  The coin is still deciding which defense gets a free pass just because the offense scored first.  Both teams need to play both offense and defense at least once in OT, and then sudden death if both defenses successfully stop the other offense.

[JayhawkCO]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

You can't.  They changed the rules back in 2017 that if you commit a penalty on the same down, that the penalty yards will be enforced and then they'll bring the clock back to what it was when the play started.  You'd get a couple seconds for one penalty, but then the next penalty would not have any time run out.

The NFL did this in response to the Ravens beating the Bengals similarly in 2016.

Edit - Section 3, Article 3.

Well, then at least do it once. Chiefs would have had the ball at the 30 with 8-9 seconds left.

Yeah.  They should have tried to kick it to the 5, high in the air, and then held once on the next play.  KC likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[1995hoo]

Regarding overtime, defense is part of the game too, not just offense.

Exactly my point: the winner of coin toss needs to play their defense too at least once, not just their opponent.  The coin is still deciding which defense gets a free pass just because the offense scored first.  Both teams need to play both offense and defense at least once in OT, and then sudden death if both defenses successfully stop the other offense.

What I was saying is not your "point" at all. What I was saying is that if you lose the coin toss and go on defense, your defense has to step up and do its job. I don't think both teams "need" to play both offense and defense. (Among other possible scenarios, the team winning the toss can lose due to a turnover that's returned for a touchdown, or due to giving up a safety.)

[JayhawkCO]

Regarding overtime, defense is part of the game too, not just offense.

Exactly my point: the winner of coin toss needs to play their defense too at least once, not just their opponent.  The coin is still deciding which defense gets a free pass just because the offense scored first.  Both teams need to play both offense and defense at least once in OT, and then sudden death if both defenses successfully stop the other offense.

What I was saying is not your "point" at all. What I was saying is that if you lose the coin toss and go on defense, your defense has to step up and do its job. I don't think both teams "need" to play both offense and defense. (Among other possible scenarios, the team winning the toss can lose due to a turnover that's returned for a touchdown, or due to giving up a safety.)

And moreover, if your defense is such a weakness that this is "unfair", then if your offense is so good (and in theory this is why you have made it to overtime), it should have been just a little bit better.

[jeffandnicole]

Look up the Miracle In The Meadowlands II to see what could happen on a kick to a returner...as time expired.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_at_the_New_Meadowlands

No matter what nearly impossible possibility exist, it can happen...

[1995hoo]

^^^^

I believe the 1971 AFC Divisional game in Kansas City (won by Miami in double overtime) was one where the Chiefs fair-caught a punt right before regulation ended and had the opportunity to send out Jan Stenerud to try a 68-yard fair catch kick, but Hank Stram was afraid Mercury Morris might run it all the way back if the kick came up short.

[gr8daynegb]

People saying Bills should have had ball, no sympathy.  OT rules were tweaked to make sure teams didn't just settle for FG's and then walk off on first possession.

Watching the Bills at end of game

#1- why no a squib kick that they'd have to field in the field of play and run time
#2- Your team burned two timeouts on defense just to allow Chiefs to move the ball like that?
#3- If you want to give Allen a shot to win it, hold KC to a field goal or less in overtime.

 

[jmacswimmer]

Look up the Miracle In The Meadowlands II to see what could happen on a kick to a returner...as time expired.

No matter what nearly impossible possibility exist, it can happen...

Tyreek Hill did return a punt 45 yards earlier in the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if that exact worst-case-scenario was part of McDermott's decision.

(I don't think Hill was the one waiting deep for the final kickoff, but KC's return team probably hadn't yet taken the field as of when the decision had to be made.)

[JayhawkCO]

I'm also really glad that the Chiefs' decision to take the ball out of Mahomes' hands and run an option with the backup TE on 3rd and goal didn't come back to bite them later, since they had to settle for a FG after losing yardage.  This OT nonsense all could have been moot if they punched it in for a TD there.

[thspfc]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

You can't.  They changed the rules back in 2017 that if you commit a penalty on the same down, that the penalty yards will be enforced and then they'll bring the clock back to what it was when the play started.  You'd get a couple seconds for one penalty, but then the next penalty would not have any time run out.

The NFL did this in response to the Ravens beating the Bengals similarly in 2016.

Edit - Section 3, Article 3.

Well, then at least do it once. Chiefs would have had the ball at the 30 with 8-9 seconds left.

Yeah.  They should have tried to kick it to the 5, high in the air, and then held once on the next play.  KC likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Downing a kickoff on the 5 is basically impossible. If you kicked it such that it was on track to land at the 5, it would either be caught and returned at least 15-20 yards, left to bounce into the end zone for a touchback, or it would go out of bounds and give them the ball at the 40.

[JayhawkCO]

Yeah.  They should have tried to kick it to the 5, high in the air, and then held once on the next play.  KC likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Downing a kickoff on the 5 is basically impossible. If you kicked it such that it was on track to land at the 5, it would either be caught and returned at least 15-20 yards, left to bounce into the end zone for a touchback, or it would go out of bounds and give them the ball at the 40.

You can eliminate the out of bounds pretty easily by just kicking it to the middle of the field.  If it goes for a touchback, no harm no foul as that's the same result they got anyway but at least they tried, but it's also a bit dangerous to not try and field a kickoff as the other team gets possession if they get to it first (on the off chance it didn't bounce into the end zone).  If it gets returned 15-20 yards, GREAT!, because they get it back to the 25 while wasting 4 or 5 seconds.  Not sure of the downsides you're trying to bring up...

[thspfc]

Yeah.  They should have tried to kick it to the 5, high in the air, and then held once on the next play.  KC likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Downing a kickoff on the 5 is basically impossible. If you kicked it such that it was on track to land at the 5, it would either be caught and returned at least 15-20 yards, left to bounce into the end zone for a touchback, or it would go out of bounds and give them the ball at the 40.

You can eliminate the out of bounds pretty easily by just kicking it to the middle of the field.  If it goes for a touchback, no harm no foul as that's the same result they got anyway but at least they tried, but it's also a bit dangerous to not try and field a kickoff as the other team gets possession if they get to it first (on the off chance it didn't bounce into the end zone).  If it gets returned 15-20 yards, GREAT!, because they get it back to the 25 while wasting 4 or 5 seconds.  Not sure of the downsides you're trying to bring up...

I’m moreso responding to you saying that the Chiefs “likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.”

[JayhawkCO]

Yeah.  They should have tried to kick it to the 5, high in the air, and then held once on the next play.  KC likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Downing a kickoff on the 5 is basically impossible. If you kicked it such that it was on track to land at the 5, it would either be caught and returned at least 15-20 yards, left to bounce into the end zone for a touchback, or it would go out of bounds and give them the ball at the 40.

You can eliminate the out of bounds pretty easily by just kicking it to the middle of the field.  If it goes for a touchback, no harm no foul as that's the same result they got anyway but at least they tried, but it's also a bit dangerous to not try and field a kickoff as the other team gets possession if they get to it first (on the off chance it didn't bounce into the end zone).  If it gets returned 15-20 yards, GREAT!, because they get it back to the 25 while wasting 4 or 5 seconds.  Not sure of the downsides you're trying to bring up...

I’m moreso responding to you saying that the Chiefs “likely would have had it at the 10 with only 5 seconds or so.”

Fair enough. My thought is that it might be more prudent for the Chiefs to fair catch it than waste time juking to try and gain more yardage. 

[jgb191]

How good is Coach Andy Reid of KC?  He has certainly changed the entire culture of the Chiefs as evident when he first arrived there, they've been title contenders every year of his tenure.  I heard from a couple of sports fans that he is almost as good a coach as NE's Bill Belichick.  Andy seems to know how to make the best use of his players and know how to make the right decisions at the right times.

[JayhawkCO]

How good is Coach Andy Reid of KC?  He has certainly changed the entire culture of the Chiefs as evident when he first arrived there, they've been title contenders every year of his tenure.  I heard from a couple of sports fans that he is almost as good a coach as NE's Bill Belichick.  Andy seems to know how to make the best use of his players and know how to make the right decisions at the right times.

HOFer without question. And he was doing a lot of this before Mahomes too.  Alex Smith is fine, but certainly not a legendary QB.

[webny99]

The Chiefs had a terrible playoff track record before Mahomes. Since he became the starter though, the Chiefs have hosted 4 straight AFC title games... first time in NFL history that's ever happened (although some of that is luck since the 1 seeds lost in 2019 and 2021).

[TheHighwayMan394]

The Chiefs had a terrible playoff track record before Mahomes. Since he became the starter though, the Chiefs have hosted 4 straight AFC title games... first time in NFL history that's ever happened (although some of that is luck since the 1 seeds lost in 2019 and 2021).

Funny enough the Titans were involved in both of those examples - eliminated the #1 seed Ravens in 2019, lost as the #1 seed this year.

[webny99]

Regarding overtime, defense is part of the game too, not just offense.

Exactly my point: the winner of coin toss needs to play their defense too at least once, not just their opponent.  The coin is still deciding which defense gets a free pass just because the offense scored first.  Both teams need to play both offense and defense at least once in OT, and then sudden death if both defenses successfully stop the other offense.

What I was saying is not your "point" at all. What I was saying is that if you lose the coin toss and go on defense, your defense has to step up and do its job. I don't think both teams "need" to play both offense and defense. (Among other possible scenarios, the team winning the toss can lose due to a turnover that's returned for a touchdown, or due to giving up a safety.)

I think the issue here is that the Bills' defense had to step up, but the Chiefs' didn't. Their defense wasn't really any better than the Bills', as they literally gave up a touchdown on the last play they were on the field. But they still won without having to do anything.

[webny99]

The Chiefs had a terrible playoff track record before Mahomes. Since he became the starter though, the Chiefs have hosted 4 straight AFC title games... first time in NFL history that's ever happened (although some of that is luck since the 1 seeds lost in 2019 and 2021).

Funny enough the Titans were involved in both of those examples - eliminated the #1 seed Ravens in 2019, lost as the #1 seed this year.

They can definitely thank the Titans for 2019 - that was one of the biggest stunners in NFL history. But this year, the Titans were only in position for the #1 seed because they beat the Chiefs, so that's more of a wash.

The Titans were also involved in perhaps the ugliest playoff loss of the Reid era in KC pre-Mahomes... the 2017 Wild Card opener in which they were leading by 18 at halftime and lost, 22-21, to extend KC's home playoff losing streak to 6 straight games. (I'm starting to think it's good therapy to talk about KC's playoff losses! )

[dvferyance]

Aaron Rodgers has as many NFC Championship wins as Rex Grossman: 1

And that one win came against a Bears team with Caleb Hannie at qb.

[TheHighwayMan394]

Aaron Rodgers has as many NFC Championship wins as Rex Grossman: 1

And that one win came against a Bears team with Caleb Hannie at qb.

Hanie didn't start the game. Both Cutler and backup Todd Collins were knocked out. Even if Cutler stayed in I don't know if the Bears would have won.

[webny99]

...  I think the issue here is that the Bills' defense had to step up, but the Chiefs' didn't. Their defense wasn't really any better than the Bills', as they literally gave up a touchdown on the last play they were on the field. But they still won without having to do anything.

And at the end of the day, teams that won the coin toss are 10-1 in the playoffs since the rule change that required a TD on the first possession. Yes, defense is important too. But it should be important for both teams, not just one.

The 2018 Saints in the NFC title game (the infamous PI no-call game) are the only team to win the overtime coin toss and lose the game. Here's a closer look at all the overtime playoff games since the 2010 rule change: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-overtime-playoff-games-history/v2ac7w5vi1xr1ufwe68uu37d8

[gr8daynegb]

...  I think the issue here is that the Bills' defense had to step up, but the Chiefs' didn't. Their defense wasn't really any better than the Bills', as they literally gave up a touchdown on the last play they were on the field. But they still won without having to do anything.

And at the end of the day, teams that won the coin toss are 10-1 in the playoffs since the rule change that required a TD on the first possession. Yes, defense is important too. But it should be important for both teams, not just one.

The 2018 Saints in the NFC title game (the infamous PI no-call game) are the only team to win the overtime coin toss and lose the game. Here's a closer look at all the overtime playoff games since the 2010 rule change: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-overtime-playoff-games-history/v2ac7w5vi1xr1ufwe68uu37d8

This isn't college anymore. These guys get paid on both sides.  The rule when it was put in was to stop teams from just getting into FG range and ending game there. And if teams still want to play soft prevent(playing not to lose, not playing to win) style defenses in OT, that is their consequence on this.  If we're gonna keep going with participation trophy style rules, do we then if the team that gets the ball first uses more than half of the quarter in OT also give other team at least just as much time to try and get a score back?  When you can't win your games in regulation no feeling sorry if your teams fails to have the pride to make a stop. 

[TheHighwayMan394]

The original XFL had a neat rule that the team with the ball second got as many plays as the first team got. If the team with the ball first scored on two plays, the second team had two plays to match or the game was over.

[webny99]

When you can't win your games in regulation no feeling sorry if your teams fails to have the pride to make a stop.

A few things on this...

Pride has nothing to do with it. It takes endurance to play an entire NFL season, all the more so in the playoffs. In this particular game, the Chiefs offense dominated time of possession. That meant that in their 19th game of the season (and 13th straight game), the Bills defense, without one of their best players, had been on the field for nearly 40 minutes. They had to have been gassed by the time it got to OT.

And don't confuse "Bills deserved a chance in OT" with "Bills deserved to win". Ultimately, it doesn't matter what happened in regulation, it's still a tie game. Of course they should have stopped the Chiefs with 13 seconds left. No one is debating that. But they didn't. The Chiefs didn't stop the Bills with 1:02 remaining to win in regulation either. Neither team was stopping anything in the final minutes. Doesn't matter. The Chiefs got a FG, and now the game is tied. Even. 36-36. Both teams have had equal opportunity, both teams scored equal points. So the debate isn't about what should have happened in regulation, it's about how to give both teams an equal chance in overtime.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. If you're still saying "but defense..."... remember that we're talking about the playoffs, not some Week 2 showdown between the Bears and Giants. You can't say it's better for the sport, in a win-or-go-home game, for one offense and one defense to never take the field in overtime. There's simply no case that that's a fair way to decide the outcome of a tie game. It was an extremely predictable and extremely disappointing ending to an otherwise spectacular game - and that would have been the case regardless of which team won the toss.

Result of the game is what it is, but if you want as fair of a contest as possible, the overtime rules need to be changed.