Octopus Overlords

Holy crap…again?

Unbelievable game. Wow. The talent….

Can’t help but compare this level of play with my turrible Panthers. Damn.

1:02 left, down 4...gotta go to Trubisky, right?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Good lord. This should really be the AFC Championship game.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

INSANITY!!! Chiefs to host AFC Championship.

I will bet money the Superbowl won’t be this good.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

What a game.

I was entertained.

Oh, Buffalo. That’s gonna hurt for a long time.

Still kinda hate the NFL OT rules.

I feel bad for Bills Mafia. That was an excellent game, and the offense did what they needed to do to win. How could they let Mahomes go down field with 13 seconds left to force OT? Terrible.

And the NFL OT rules suck. At the very least change it for the playoffs so that both teams get the ball.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I will bet money the Superbowl won’t be this good.

Considering this was probably the best playoff game I’ve ever seen, I think that’s a safe bet.

Feel bad for the Bills; they should’ve won it in regulation but dumb calls (no squib kick? Complete prevention defense) cost them. Also, OT rules suck.

That happened.

Amazing. 25 points in < 2 min...

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:23 pm That happened.

Anybody die? I mean I think I would have set my tv on fire.

I’ve been a Bills fan since 1984, so I knew better than to celebrate when the Bills took the lead with 0:13 left. Then they kicked deep and I said “wat?”. Then they played defense 30 yards off the ball and gave up 30 on the first play, and I said “yep”. Seen this. This one stings worse than Music City Miracle.

This QB is incredible, and next year we have to start making compromises to pay him. This year starts the brain drain as other teams poach front office folks and coaches. This was the game you had to win. This was your opportunity.

And the defense blew it (all game).

Thirding the OT rules suck commentary.

I’m sure his being double covered opened up Gabriel Davis.

Meat Loaf was close...three out of four aint bad.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:44 pm Thirding the OT rules suck commentary.

True but




They got screwed by the rule against the Patriots a few years ago.

I don't understand the OT rules hate.

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am I don't understand the OT rules hate.

For me it's the idea of a playoff game being not decided, but doling out a massive advantage to one team based on a coin toss. Football is a sport where offense/defense are played separately (vs, say, hockey), so 'possession' matters bigly. It's somewhat equivalent to MLB deciding that in the playoffs, games tied after 9 innings will be decided by the next score, no bottom inning needed. Then deciding who bats first via coin toss.

In this game, we had two very competent offenses, both of which were on a historic roll, knot things up at the end of regulation. Both defenses were gassed. Whoever won that coin toss was pretty likely to score a TD.

I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit. But the bottom line is Buffalo never got a shot to possess the ball in OT, and that sucks (for me as a fan).

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am I don't understand the OT rules hate.

Did you hear the crowd and see the Chiefs’ captains reaction when they won the toss? That says a lot IMO.

Also noteworthy that it was typically ‘Cool as a cuke’ Mahomes, not some heady rookie going crazy with adrenaline and being on the big stage.

A coin toss shouldn’t generate that much enthusiasm is my point here.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit.

Additional counter: never call Tails in a coin flip.


But, as Zaxxon said, the game was basically decided by the coin flip. It was pretty clear whoever got the ball first was going to win, considering the previous 2 minutes of game time.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:57 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit.

Additional counter: never call Tails in a coin flip.


But, as Zaxxon said, the game was basically decided by the coin flip. It was pretty clear whoever got the ball first was going to win, considering the previous 2 minutes of game time.

Although I should point out that in this particular case, 'don't give up a FG drive in 13 seconds' is a pretty compelling argument.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am I don't understand the OT rules hate.

For me it's the idea of a playoff game being not decided, but doling out a massive advantage to one team based on a coin toss. Football is a sport where offense/defense are played separately (vs, say, hockey), so 'possession' matters bigly. It's somewhat equivalent to MLB deciding that in the playoffs, games tied after 9 innings will be decided by the next score, no bottom inning needed. Then deciding who bats first via coin toss.

In this game, we had two very competent offenses, both of which were on a historic roll, knot things up at the end of regulation. Both defenses were gassed. Whoever won that coin toss was pretty likely to score a TD.

I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit. But the bottom line is Buffalo never got a shot to possess the ball in OT, and that sucks (for me as a fan).

Yeah. but it begs the question of what the alternative rule is, which isn't as straightforward a proposition as you would think. 11 alternative overtime rules.

You could play the entire overtime period and have the winner be whomever is ahead (with presumably more than one overtime if they're still tied), but football is a grueling game and adding that much additional time at the end is going to reduce the quality of play and result in injuries. You can start sudden death after each team has possessed the ball, but that doesn't really eliminate the impact of the coin toss - e.g., Team A wins the toss, gets the ball, scores a TD. Team B gets the ball, scores a TD. Team A gets the ball again, scores again, game over. Team A still benefited significantly from the coin toss, because each team scored in every possession, and Team A got an extra possession because of the coin.

There's also college football overtime rules:

Each team gets one possession starting from the opponent’s 25-yard line.

If the score is still tied after both possessions, the process repeats, but the team that went first goes second, and vice versa.

After two overtime periods, no extra points are allowed. Only two-point conversions.

But that doesn't eliminate the impact of the coin toss; instead, it just gives an incentive to go second rather than first (because then you know whether you need a TD or just a FG).

Honestly I'm not sure there's a rule set that's an obvious improvement on the current overtime rules.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:01 am Although I should point out that in this particular case, 'don't give up a FG drive in 13 seconds' is a pretty compelling argument.

Eh, that's a bit of a strawman. What lead to OT doesn't really change that the OT rules are terrible.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am I don't understand the OT rules hate.

For me it's the idea of a playoff game being not decided, but doling out a massive advantage to one team based on a coin toss. Football is a sport where offense/defense are played separately (vs, say, hockey), so 'possession' matters bigly. It's somewhat equivalent to MLB deciding that in the playoffs, games tied after 9 innings will be decided by the next score, no bottom inning needed. Then deciding who bats first via coin toss.

In this game, we had two very competent offenses, both of which were on a historic roll, knot things up at the end of regulation. Both defenses were gassed. Whoever won that coin toss was pretty likely to score a TD.

I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit. But the bottom line is Buffalo never got a shot to possess the ball in OT, and that sucks (for me as a fan).

I don't understand what letting Buffalo possess the ball gains. Say they did and Buffalo scores a TD. Now the Chiefs drive and kick a FG - they still win, still game over and they were still in that position because the coin toss got them the ball first. I think the rules are fine (although I do like the alternate plan where Team A possesses the ball and scores in X plays, then Team B has X plays to duplicate the score. The announcing and play choices would be really fun.).

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:58 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:01 am Although I should point out that in this particular case, 'don't give up a FG drive in 13 seconds' is a pretty compelling argument.

Eh, that's a bit of a strawman. What lead to OT doesn't really change that the OT rules are terrible.

I'm being facetious. There's 'don't be terrible,' and then there's a whole other level of whatever that 'defense' was.

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:09 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am I don't understand what letting Buffalo possess the ball gains. Say they did and Buffalo scores a TD. Now the Chiefs drive and kick a FG - they still win, still game over and they were still in that position because the coin toss got them the ball first. I think the rules are fine (although I do like the alternate plan where Team A possesses the ball and scores in X plays, then Team B has X plays to duplicate the score. The announcing and play choices would be really fun.).

Now you've at least forced 3 things to happen in order for the game to be decided--2 TDs and a FG--rather than just one--coin flip team scores TD, game over. Each change reduces the impact of that initial coin toss. Agree that no solution is perfect.

I do like the idea of counting plays and having that matter somehow.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:45 amfootball is a grueling game and adding that much additional time at the end is going to reduce the quality of play and result in injuries.

I'm not sure that's a compelling argument in this case. In the reg season, sure. Ask the Bills players whether they'd have preferred to risk some injuries to have a shot at the ball.

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:09 am I don't understand what letting Buffalo possess the ball gains. Say they did and Buffalo scores a TD. Now the Chiefs drive and kick a FG - they still win, still game over and they were still in that position because the coin toss got them the ball first.

That may be true, but it feels fairer.


One thing that I read on Twitter but don't know if it's actually true: if the team that loses the coin toss kicks and recovers an onsides kick, they only need a FG to win. Seems if that was the case, more teams might try for an onsides kick, but I guess coaches tend to be pretty risk adverse.

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:09 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:37 am

stessier wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am I don't understand the OT rules hate.

For me it's the idea of a playoff game being not decided, but doling out a massive advantage to one team based on a coin toss. Football is a sport where offense/defense are played separately (vs, say, hockey), so 'possession' matters bigly. It's somewhat equivalent to MLB deciding that in the playoffs, games tied after 9 innings will be decided by the next score, no bottom inning needed. Then deciding who bats first via coin toss.

In this game, we had two very competent offenses, both of which were on a historic roll, knot things up at the end of regulation. Both defenses were gassed. Whoever won that coin toss was pretty likely to score a TD.

I've heard the counters (Don't allow a TD then, natch! Score more in regulation!), which have some merit. But the bottom line is Buffalo never got a shot to possess the ball in OT, and that sucks (for me as a fan).

I don't understand what letting Buffalo possess the ball gains. Say they did and Buffalo scores a TD. Now the Chiefs drive and kick a FG - they still win, still game over and they were still in that position because the coin toss got them the ball first. I think the rules are fine (although I do like the alternate plan where Team A possesses the ball and scores in X plays, then Team B has X plays to duplicate the score. The announcing and play choices would be really fun.).

I will say that I kind of like the idea of an auction based on field position - the coaches meet at midfield and essentially bid for starting possession based upon who is most willing to pay for it in field position. E.g. "I'll take the ball and start at my 30 yard line" "I'll take it at my 20 yard line" "I'll take it at my 10 yard line" "I'll take it at my 5 yard line" ... SOLD.

After that determines starting possession and field position, you play with the current overtime rules - TD ends it, a FG gives the other team the ball. Board games will sometimes use systems like this to determine sides rather than rely on chance (e.g., in Twilight Struggle you can "bid" for whichever side you want by agreeing to give the other player bonus starting influence).

It's really the only good way to actually eliminate luck from the process, plus it'd be really fun to see Mike McCarthy screw it up spectacularly.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:14 am Now you've at least forced 3 things to happen in order for the game to be decided--2 TDs and a FG--rather than just one--coin flip team scores TD, game over. Each change reduces the impact of that initial coin toss. Agree that no solution is perfect.

Here's a perfect solution:

Both kickers kick a FG from the 40. If both make it, move to the 45, etc., etc. until one kicker misses. Who could complain about that way to determine the outcome of a playoff game???

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:14 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:45 amfootball is a grueling game and adding that much additional time at the end is going to reduce the quality of play and result in injuries.

I'm not sure that's a compelling argument in this case. In the reg season, sure. Ask the Bills players whether they'd have preferred to risk some injuries to have a shot at the ball.

So would you prefer the "play complete overtime periods until they end with a non-tied score" system to the current set up? I'm not opposed per se, but at the same time I start to imagine a triple overtime game and I immediately start feeling sore.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:45 am There's also college football overtime rules:

Each team gets one possession starting from the opponent’s 25-yard line.

If the score is still tied after both possessions, the process repeats, but the team that went first goes second, and vice versa.

After two overtime periods, no extra points are allowed. Only two-point conversions.

But that doesn't eliminate the impact of the coin toss; instead, it just gives an incentive to go second rather than first (because then you know whether you need a TD or just a FG).

Honestly I'm not sure there's a rule set that's an obvious improvement on the current overtime rules.

College messed with their overtime rules this year. Now after two possessions, OT becomes a 2-point conversion shootout. They were trying to cut down on marathon length games (every year it seems one or more games would go to 5 or 6 OTs), but the change is truly awful.

Prevent defense only prevents one thing...

I would say it was the best football I've watched in years, but that's a really low bar.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:21 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:14 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:45 amfootball is a grueling game and adding that much additional time at the end is going to reduce the quality of play and result in injuries.

I'm not sure that's a compelling argument in this case. In the reg season, sure. Ask the Bills players whether they'd have preferred to risk some injuries to have a shot at the ball.

So would you prefer the "play complete overtime periods until they end with a non-tied score" system to the current set up? I'm not opposed per se, but at the same time I start to imagine a triple overtime game and I immediately start feeling sore.

I'm not sure I have a solution in mind, other than 'something that guarantees each team a possession,' even with the understanding that that's not a perfect situation, either.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:19 amI will say that I kind of like the idea of an auction based on field position - the coaches meet at midfield and essentially bid for starting possession based upon who is most willing to pay for it in field position. E.g. "I'll take the ball and start at my 30 yard line" "I'll take it at my 20 yard line" "I'll take it at my 10 yard line" "I'll take it at my 5 yard line" ... SOLD.

After that determines starting possession and field position, you play with the current overtime rules - TD ends it, a FG gives the other team the ball. Board games will sometimes use systems like this to determine sides rather than rely on chance (e.g., in Twilight Struggle you can "bid" for whichever side you want by agreeing to give the other player bonus starting influence).

Although I could get behind this, provided there's a requirement that an actual board game geek mediates this initial bidding process while frequently consulting the game's rulebook.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:01 am Although I should point out that in this particular case, 'don't give up a FG drive in 13 seconds' is a pretty compelling argument.

I've always wondered about the common sentiment of "the defense is just gassed". Romo commented yesterday about how tired the Buffalo defense was because they "keep having to run 100-yard sprints". Aren't they running those sprints to cover the receivers...who are also running those same sprints?

I'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.

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.

Yeah, one side knows where they are going and makes the choices, the other side is reacting, which is more stressful mentally and physically.