Print

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

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

I've been through a few different ideas, and this is what I've settled on:

Both teams get one possession from their own 25 yard line. If the first team scores a TD, they can only go for 1, not for 2. The second team is not allowed to attempt a game-tying score. If the first team got a FG, the second team must get a TD or nothing. If the first team got a TD+1, the second team must go for 2 after a TD. In other words, you're not allowed to have both teams scoring 3 points or both teams scoring 7 points. The only way the game ends up tied is if both teams end up with 0 points from failing to score or with 6 points from both having failed PAT attempts, in which case you do it again.

[thspfc]

Sean Payton is stepping away. The Saints need a full rebuild from the bottom to the very top. Now is the time for them to hire a coach who didn't pay his players to injure others, find leadership that didn't help cover up a child sexual abuse scandal, redo their awful uniforms, find a quarterback who completes more than 50% of his throws, find a no. 1 wide receiver that has played more than 5 games in the last two seasons, find a stadium that isn't a dark, aging, and ugly hole, and find a city that isn't under major threat of being washed away each year. I propose Salt Lake City, Portland, or Oklahoma City.

[JayhawkCO]

Another OT option that I've seen proposed.  First team to 8 in overtime wins.  So you can kick a FG on the first possession and a TD doesn't automatically beat you.  Getting a TD and missing the 2-pointer on the opening drive doesn't automatically doom you either as the other team still has to get their 2-pointer.

Also, good riddance Payton. 

[ethanhopkin14]

Sean Payton is stepping away. The Saints need a full rebuild from the bottom to the very top. Now is the time for them to hire a coach who didn't pay his players to injure others, find leadership that didn't help cover up a child sexual abuse scandal, redo their awful uniforms, find a quarterback who completes more than 50% of his throws, find a no. 1 wide receiver that has played more than 5 games in the last two seasons, find a stadium that isn't a dark, aging, and ugly hole, and find a city that isn't under major threat of being washed away each year. I propose Salt Lake City, Portland, or Oklahoma City.

I will agree with everything except the uniforms part.  The Saints have one of the best uniforms in the league.  They really need to get rid of the black pants though.  The gold pants are amazing. 

[gr8daynegb]

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.

Difference between regular season and playoffs-That's also why in week 2 overtime is 10 minutes and games can end in ties......and if we are hooked on this idea of "fairness" then shouldn't second team to have ball in that scenario have just as much time to score?  Many teams in a ten minute OT could have near all of the OT as a possession, kick a FG and leave barely any time for other team.  The current OT rule was the "fair to both teams" rule when it was made.  So we went from crying from when one team kicks a FG and our team/or other team didn't another shot to inserting TD into that instead.  Should I put you down for having to play a full quarter in the near future because team that plays defense first will always keep pushing gripe they never had a shot to respond back? 

But NFL and networks like the extra $$ and ratings, this appeases fanbases and teams who get a 2nd chance(so more prevent defense, yay.....hence a lot of my opposition as when you play not to lose ball, you lose and at that point it's excuses), and sports seems to have the participation culture finding it's way in to make people think things are more fair(just to cry about new unfairness sooner than later) so good luck to me here(outside of NFLPA and such wanting more compensation if more minutes of football needing to be played).

[ethanhopkin14]

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.

Difference between regular season and playoffs-That's also why in week 2 overtime is 10 minutes and games can end in ties......and if we are hooked on this idea of "fairness" then shouldn't second team to have ball in that scenario have just as much time to score?  Many teams in a ten minute OT could have near all of the OT as a possession, kick a FG and leave barely any time for other team.  The current OT rule was the "fair to both teams" rule when it was made.  So we went from crying from when one team kicks a FG and our team/or other team didn't another shot to inserting TD into that instead.  Should I put you down for having to play a full quarter in the near future because team that plays defense first will always keep pushing gripe they never had a shot to respond back? 

But NFL and networks like the extra $$ and ratings, this appeases fanbases and teams who get a 2nd chance(so more prevent defense, yay.....hence a lot of my opposition as when you play not to lose ball, you lose and at that point it's excuses), and sports seems to have the participation culture finding it's way in to make people think things are more fair(just to cry about new unfairness sooner than later) so good luck to me here(outside of NFLPA and such wanting more compensation if more minutes of football needing to be played).

Bottom line, if you don't want to get into a situation where you don't touch the ball in overtime, get your business done in regulation.  Don't mess around to the point where you need a rule change to get your business done. 

If you gripe about a pass interference no call at the end of a game, don't blame the whole game on that.  Do more before that so if you get hosed on a call you are 14 points ahead instead of tied. 

Take care of your own stuff.  Don't put the game in the hands of the officials or the rules committee.  Most of the time when you lose the blame is staring back at you in the mirror regardless if you think you got jammed. 

That's sports.  Sports imitates life.  Sometimes it's just not fair.  Sometimes you benefit while it's not fair to the next guy.  You can't take the time it worked out and complain about the times it didn't.  For every pass interference no call that went against you, there were a dozen pass interference no calls that went in your favor. 

[wanderer2575]

You can't take the time it worked out and complain about the times it didn't.  For every pass interference no calls that went against you, there were a dozen pass interference no calls that went in your favor.

This, exactly.

[gr8daynegb]

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.

Difference between regular season and playoffs-That's also why in week 2 overtime is 10 minutes and games can end in ties......and if we are hooked on this idea of "fairness" then shouldn't second team to have ball in that scenario have just as much time to score?  Many teams in a ten minute OT could have near all of the OT as a possession, kick a FG and leave barely any time for other team.  The current OT rule was the "fair to both teams" rule when it was made.  So we went from crying from when one team kicks a FG and our team/or other team didn't another shot to inserting TD into that instead.  Should I put you down for having to play a full quarter in the near future because team that plays defense first will always keep pushing gripe they never had a shot to respond back? 

But NFL and networks like the extra $$ and ratings, this appeases fanbases and teams who get a 2nd chance(so more prevent defense, yay.....hence a lot of my opposition as when you play not to lose ball, you lose and at that point it's excuses), and sports seems to have the participation culture finding it's way in to make people think things are more fair(just to cry about new unfairness sooner than later) so good luck to me here(outside of NFLPA and such wanting more compensation if more minutes of football needing to be played).

Bottom line, if you don't want to get into a situation where you don't touch the ball in overtime, get your business done in regulation.  Don't mess around to the point where you need a rule change to get your business done. 

If you gripe about a pass interference no call at the end of a game, don't blame the whole game on that.  Do more before that so if you get hosed on a call you are 14 points ahead instead of tied. 

Take care of your own stuff.  Don't put the game in the hands of the officials or the rules committee.  Most of the time when you lose the blame is staring back at you in the mirror regardless if you think you got jammed. 

That's sports.  Sports imitates life.  Sometimes it's just not fair.  Sometimes you benefit while it's not fair to the next guy.  You can't take the time it worked out and complain about the times it didn't.  For every pass interference no call that went against you, there were a dozen pass interference no calls that went in your favor.

Exactly.

And if we remember when Pass interference was a reviewable call, because you know "fairness"  nobody was happy with that rule as was written or enforced.  I think only during a Packers/Vikings game did something happen with PI replay(which if I remember as a Packers fan, that Vikings got hosed on that call) and then everyone hated it until that was removed from being reviewable. 

And system isn't perfect as is either.....forget the player but in my mind the INT in the Bengals/Titans game to me was an incomplete pass, but it's up to players to not get themselves in situations that a refs interpretation of the rule or a sudden death period/quarter has your whole season on the line.

[ethanhopkin14]

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.

Difference between regular season and playoffs-That's also why in week 2 overtime is 10 minutes and games can end in ties......and if we are hooked on this idea of "fairness" then shouldn't second team to have ball in that scenario have just as much time to score?  Many teams in a ten minute OT could have near all of the OT as a possession, kick a FG and leave barely any time for other team.  The current OT rule was the "fair to both teams" rule when it was made.  So we went from crying from when one team kicks a FG and our team/or other team didn't another shot to inserting TD into that instead.  Should I put you down for having to play a full quarter in the near future because team that plays defense first will always keep pushing gripe they never had a shot to respond back? 

But NFL and networks like the extra $$ and ratings, this appeases fanbases and teams who get a 2nd chance(so more prevent defense, yay.....hence a lot of my opposition as when you play not to lose ball, you lose and at that point it's excuses), and sports seems to have the participation culture finding it's way in to make people think things are more fair(just to cry about new unfairness sooner than later) so good luck to me here(outside of NFLPA and such wanting more compensation if more minutes of football needing to be played).

Bottom line, if you don't want to get into a situation where you don't touch the ball in overtime, get your business done in regulation.  Don't mess around to the point where you need a rule change to get your business done. 

If you gripe about a pass interference no call at the end of a game, don't blame the whole game on that.  Do more before that so if you get hosed on a call you are 14 points ahead instead of tied. 

Take care of your own stuff.  Don't put the game in the hands of the officials or the rules committee.  Most of the time when you lose the blame is staring back at you in the mirror regardless if you think you got jammed. 

That's sports.  Sports imitates life.  Sometimes it's just not fair.  Sometimes you benefit while it's not fair to the next guy.  You can't take the time it worked out and complain about the times it didn't.  For every pass interference no call that went against you, there were a dozen pass interference no calls that went in your favor.

Exactly.

And if we remember when Pass interference was a reviewable call, because you know "fairness"  nobody was happy with that rule as was written or enforced.  I think only during a Packers/Vikings game did something happen with PI replay(which if I remember as a Packers fan, that Vikings got hosed on that call) and then everyone hated it until that was removed from being reviewable. 

And system isn't perfect as is either.....forget the player but in my mind the INT in the Bengals/Titans game to me was an incomplete pass, but it's up to players to not get themselves in situations that a refs interpretation of the rule or a sudden death period/quarter has your whole season on the line.

As a diehard Cowboys fan, I should be upset that the Umpire got in the way to spot the ball a yard back and Dak couldn’t spike the ball at the end of the game. No, in real time I just accepted it because I watched that whole game. It was frustrating. The Cowboys could have scored 14 points but stupid penalties and dumb play calling got in the way. The way that game ended sucked for the Cowboys, but it’s was their fault for being there to begin with. With 1 second left they should have been kneeling the ball instead of scrambling around to try and snap it for a spike.

This all to say the Umpire more than did his job correctly. They blame was on the coaches and players.

[thspfc]

https://mobile.twitter.com/EliApple/status/1485500825854259204

https://mobile.twitter.com/EliApple/status/1485468234405097473

https://mobile.twitter.com/LakeShowOrlando/status/1485466001030352896

I think Eli Apple is my new favorite player?

[webny99]

I think Eli Apple is my new favorite player?

Although I'm not sure randomly trolling the Saints on Twitter is the best thing to do when you've got a championship game to prepare for...

[webny99]

We've had plenty of Bills-Chiefs talk and overtime rules talk, but...

I think Packers-49ers was almost as classic, in a very different way. Maybe my favorite stat of the weekend is that 49ers-Packers had 23 points total, Bills-Chiefs had 25 points in the final two minutes! But I still can't believe the Packers lost that game. A complete gag job in all three phases in the final minutes. To lose at home with the MVP quarterback while only allowing 2 field goals on defense is almost incomprehensible.

And now the 49ers are somehow back in the title game. Just crazy that the Rams were one first down away from keeping the 49ers out of the playoffs entirely... and now three weeks later, here they are again for a rematch. If the Rams lose again, it would be disastrous. They have to look at that regular season finale as a massive missed opportunity to end the 49ers season and get a higher seed... and yet, they also have to be thankful that the 49ers saved them from going to Lambeau. A strange dichotomy to say the least!

[webny99]

And then there's this weird thing with the Rams limiting tickets to people from the LA area to avoid a repeat of Week 18 when the stadium was packed with 49ers fans... I don't get it. Not only is it a bad look, I don't think it's going to change anything. LA literally didn't have an NFL team until 6 years ago, so most of those 49ers fans are probably from the LA area.

[thspfc]

I think Eli Apple is my new favorite player?

Although I'm not sure randomly trolling the Saints on Twitter is the best thing to do when you've got a championship game to prepare for...

You want him to be practicing/studying film 24/7? Burnout is a thing, you know. And football is a very physical and very emotional game. If you’re not excited to play, you’re not going to play well.

[jeffandnicole]

And then there's this weird thing with the Rams limiting tickets to people from the LA area to avoid a repeat of Week 18 when the stadium was packed with 49ers fans... I don't get it. Not only is it a bad look, I don't think it's going to change anything. LA literally didn't have an NFL team until 6 years ago, so most of those 49ers fans are probably from the LA area.

The Washington Nationals have done this in the past to prevent Phillies fans from buying up the tickets when the Phils were Divison winners for several years.

[thspfc]

And then there's this weird thing with the Rams limiting tickets to people from the LA area to avoid a repeat of Week 18 when the stadium was packed with 49ers fans... I don't get it. Not only is it a bad look, I don't think it's going to change anything. LA literally didn't have an NFL team until 6 years ago, so most of those 49ers fans are probably from the LA area.

I don’t think it’s a bad decision honestly. Whatever bad PR this gives them is nothing compared to their shiny stadium being full of Niners fans like it was a couple weeks ago.

[webny99]

And then there's this weird thing with the Rams limiting tickets to people from the LA area to avoid a repeat of Week 18 when the stadium was packed with 49ers fans... I don't get it. Not only is it a bad look, I don't think it's going to change anything. LA literally didn't have an NFL team until 6 years ago, so most of those 49ers fans are probably from the LA area.

I don’t think it’s a bad decision honestly. Whatever bad PR this gives them is nothing compared to their shiny stadium being full of Niners fans like it was a couple weeks ago.

But that's my point... it's probably going to be full of 49ers fans anyways. Most of the fans at that Week 18 game had to have been from the LA area, and I'm sure most 49ers fans from elsewhere in the state have connections and could get in if they wanted.

[NWI_Irish96]

And then there's this weird thing with the Rams limiting tickets to people from the LA area to avoid a repeat of Week 18 when the stadium was packed with 49ers fans... I don't get it. Not only is it a bad look, I don't think it's going to change anything. LA literally didn't have an NFL team until 6 years ago, so most of those 49ers fans are probably from the LA area.

The Washington Nationals have done this in the past to prevent Phillies fans from buying up the tickets when the Phils were Divison winners for several years.

Nashville Predators do this whenever they get in a playoff series with Chicago. Ticket sales to Tennessee addresses only.

In the Rams' case, this is what you get when you keep moving. Moved from LA to Saint Louis where most were Bears fans. Then while they're gone from LA most people became 49ers fans so now they come back and reap what they sowed.

[1995hoo]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

[bing101]

https://fox5sandiego.com/sports/nfl-sued-over-chargers-relocation-from-san-diego/


The NFL Sues the LA Chargers over the relocation of the team.

[Max Rockatansky]

https://fox5sandiego.com/sports/nfl-sued-over-chargers-relocation-from-san-diego/


The NFL Sues the LA Chargers over the relocation of the team.

The NFL is the party being sued.

[JayhawkCO]

Vikings hired Kwesi Adofo-Mensah as GM.  Princeton grad, former finance guy.  Only came into the NFL 9 years ago and moved up very quickly.  Apparently he's very big on analytics, so watch out people who don't like teams going for it on 4th down like the Chargers do.  Vikings are going to play the math.  I think it's a great hire.

[jmacswimmer]

Vikings hired Kwesi Adofo-Mensah as GM.  Princeton grad, former finance guy.  Only came into the NFL 9 years ago and moved up very quickly.  Apparently he's very big on analytics, so watch out people who don't like teams going for it on 4th down like the Chargers do.  Vikings are going to play the math.  I think it's a great hire.

Meanwhile down in Chicago, Ryan Poles is the new GM (supposedly Poles & Adofo-Mensah were the 2 finalists in both Chicago & Minnesota and it just so happened that each wound up with their preferred finalist) which made for some easy jokes summed up by the following:



Someone happened to notice Bears chairman George McCaskey (fully decked out in Bears gear, I should note) picking up Poles at O'Hare on Monday night, which reminded me of the Seinfeld joke about driving to the airport being a huge step in male relationships.  So I had a feeling Poles would be the guy as soon as that happened, and sure enough the hire was first reported Tuesday afternoon and confirmed Tuesday night.

[webny99]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

No, it is indeed a fact that, in order for the game to be decided in a fair manner (or at the very least, as close to fair as possible), both teams must play both units in overtime.

[1995hoo]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

No, it is indeed a fact that, in order for the game to be decided in a fair manner (or at the very least, as close to fair as possible), both teams must play both units in overtime.

No, that is very definitely your opinion. Put differently, suppose the other day Mahomes had thrown a pick-six on the first play in overtime. Buffalo would not have been required to go on offense, nor Kansas City on defense, but I don't think anyone would deem that "unfair"—yet your argument says it would have been unfair (perhaps because you'd theorize that Kansas City should likewise have had the chance to return a fumble or an interception for a touchdown to tie the game?).