Broncos-Seahawks a classic, but NFL's OT rules must change

[CrazyHorse]

SEATTLE — The winner of a classic football game should never be determined by pure, dumb luck.

Unlike the Super Bowl, the only difference Sunday between the Broncos and Seattle was a flip of the coin.

"We felt like we were the better team," Broncos defensive tackle Terrance Knighton said.

Not to take anything away from the Seahawks' 26-20 overtime victory against Denver, but if there's anything we've learned from the NFL of late, it's this: What's fair got to do with anything in this league? And the more the rules change, the less we trust that justice is truly being served.

After Denver rallied from a 14-point deficit in the fourth quarter on the road in the NFL's rowdiest stadium, the silence of stunned Seahawks fans was deafening as quarterback Peyton Manning represented the Broncos on the coin flip to determine which team would get the football to begin overtime.

Manning called tails.

The Seahawks won.

NFL overtime rules are stupid.

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_26579882/this-classic-had-everything-except-perfect-broncos-ending

I've always thought they should just play a full 15 minute quarter.

[DenBronx]

Disagree, I think the OT rules are fine. Yeah we lost but we still could have held them to a field goal or less.

[CrazyHorse]

Disagree, I think the OT rules are fine. Yeah we lost but we still could have held them to a field goal or less.

I understand why it's in place. They want the games to get over as fast as possible. I think the fairest way is playing a full extended period until the clock strikes zero, whether that be a full or partial quarter. The other major sports such as NBA, NHL, and MLB use this.

[Pudge]

I understand why it's in place. They want the games to get over as fast as possible. I think the fairest way is playing a full extended period until the clock strikes zero, whether that be a full or partial quarter. The other major sports such as NBA, NHL, and MLB use this.

NHL is sudden death, and it's a completely different style of game and unfair to compare the two

[Joel]

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_26579882/this-classic-had-everything-except-perfect-broncos-ending

I've always thought they should just play a full 15 minute quarter.
I like that, then play to a sudden death decision in the playoffs. If neither team can pull and STAY ahead after 5 quarters, sudden death's fine (and is still what happens after 2 possessions, so no change.)

As for Sunday though:
"We felt like we were the better team," Broncos defensive tackle Terrance Knighton said.Yeah, so did they; only one team PROVED it on the field.

[Dzone]

their defense should have had to come out and taken our best shot too. Yes, we took their best shot and got our ass kicked. We should have been able to match them for points until someone loses. Could have been a great shootout and a tv ratings bonanza...
They change rules all the time, dunking over the cross bar, basketball rules for defensive backs etc They need an OT format that gives both teams a shot at victory and not at the mercy of a coin flip.Its not that hard to give a level playing field. If you like it the way it is, fine. Im not going to say shit to you about it. To each his own. I wish it would be changed

[chazoe60]

You know how stupid we sound by banging this "we lost because of a coin flip" drum? We lost because our defense couldn't stop them in OT. Wasn't our game.

What I'm about to say has never been truer, let's get 'em next time.

[Dzone]

Well then college football really got it wrong with their OT..not stupid to talk about it. This is a discussion board and discussing an issue is why its here. This topic has been debated today in the national media..no point in discussing it here

[Joel]

Well then college football really got it wrong with their OT.
Yup, sure did; it may be the stupidest thing to happen on a football field since the 'Skins lost a Championship 15-14 because Sammy Baugh threw a pass into the goal posts for an automatic safety.

[aberdien]

I think OT should be a full 15 minute period. If it's still tied at the end, have a FG shootout.

[Dapper Dan]

I think OT should be a full 15 minute period. If it's still tied at the end, have a FG shootout.

That would be interesting.

[Dapper Dan]

Overtime is still better than it was, but should be better. College Football OT is much better and much more exciting. I'm not sure I see anything interesting about the first to score thing. The team with the ball obviously starts with an advantage.

[Joel]

I think OT should be a full 15 minute period. If it's still tied at the end, have a FG shootout.
Was with you till the last part; even soccer fans hate penalty kicks—and they have a designated place for them. How'd that work, start with a PAT and keep moving back 10 yds till someone misses? Ask the Dutch how they liked missing the World Cup Final (which only HAPPENS every 4 years) on freakin' penalties. A regular season tie or postseason sudden death's good enough if STILL tied after 5 full quarters.

[aberdien]

Was with you till the last part; even soccer fans hate penalty kicks—and they have a designated place for them. How'd that work, start with a PAT and keep moving back 10 yds till someone misses? Ask the Dutch how they liked missing the World Cup Final (which only HAPPENS every 4 years) on freakin' penalties. A regular season tie or postseason sudden death's good enough if STILL tied after 5 full quarters.

People are gonna complain either way. FG shootout doesn't need to happen in playoffs, but in the regular season to end a game I think it'd be fun. Keeps the kickers an important component of the game, makes it tense.

[BroncoJoe]

I do like how college football handles ties.

That said, had we won the flip and scored a TD on our first possession, this discussion would be taking place in Seattle, and we'd all be just fine with it.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Overtime is still better than it was, but should be better. College Football OT is much better and much more exciting. I'm not sure I see anything interesting about the first to score thing. The team with the ball obviously starts with an advantage.

I love college OT. The NFL should use that system; it's exciting and fair.

[TXBRONC]

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_26579882/this-classic-had-everything-except-perfect-broncos-ending

I've always thought they should just play a full 15 minute quarter.

CH as you well know Denver won a playoff game using this format so it's not like Denver hasn't benefited from it in the past. It's not like the defense didn't have a chance to stop them. Just because Manning didn't get a chance to get on the field in overtime isn't justification for a second time in four years.

[Slick]

I don't really like college OT. I like the idea of a 5th quarter and then going to the existing format if it is still tied.

However, complaining about it now after Denver lost sounds like sour grapes at this point.

[Northman]

That said, had we won the flip and scored a TD on our first possession, this discussion would be taking place in Seattle, and we'd all be just fine with it.

Agreed.

While i have long accepted how the NCAA does its OT periods i actually do not like it. I still like sudden death because it means more and is far more challenging than just simply giving both teams a chance with the ball. For me, football has always been about making plays whether its offensively, defensively, or on ST's. When you start allowing both teams to have it offensively it just tells me that defense and ST's just arent important. For us this past weekend, if we couldnt stop the Seahawks on their opening drive of OT we dont deserve to win that game. Want to win? Make a play.

[Ravage!!!]

Overtime is still better than it was, but should be better. College Football OT is much better and much more exciting. I'm not sure I see anything interesting about the first to score thing. The team with the ball obviously starts with an advantage.

I HATE the college football OT. Has to be the lamest OTs in all of sports. I'm glad its not like the college football OT.
-----------
(moving on to another part of the subject)

I actually like the OT in the NFL now. I didn't like it before the rule change, but the rule change is fair.

We didn't lose because our defense couldn't stop them in OT, we lost because we couldn't score until the last minutes of the 60 minute football game. Our defense kept us in that game. Our offense lost this one.

[TimHippo]

You know how stupid we sound by banging this "we lost because of a coin flip" drum? We lost because our defense couldn't stop them in OT. Wasn't our game.

What I'm about to say has never been truer, let's get 'em next time.

Exactly. Sounds like a bunch of sore losers.

If things had been reversed nobody would be whining.

[Hawgdriver]

It's painful that Mark Kiszla is a voice for Bronco Nation.

[TXBRONC]

I also do not agree that the rule is unfair because the rule applies to all 32 teams and they all "live and die" by it.

[MasterShake]

Disagree, I think the OT rules are fine. Yeah we lost but we still could have held them to a field goal or less.

I was fine with the rules when Tebow took out Pittsburgh, so I can live with what happened. If they were to change though why not just play a full OT quarter and see how it shakes out? No sudden death on a TD, just give the ball back after a score and see who can score more. If its tied after one OT quarter then its a tie. In the playoffs it would just keep going.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

CH as you well know Denver won a playoff game using this format so it's not like Denver hasn't benefited from it in the past. It's not like the defense didn't have a chance to stop them. Just because Manning didn't get a chance to get on the field in overtime isn't justification for a second time in four years.

I don't think what happened is unfair. We lost in a fair way under the current rules. I just happen to like the college OT system. I think it ads a level of excitement not found in the pro game.

[TXBRONC]

I was fine with the rules when Tebow took out Pittsburgh, so I can live with what happened. If they were to change though why not just play a full OT quarter and see how it shakes out? No sudden death on a TD, just give the ball back after a score and see who can score more. If its tied after one OT quarter then its a tie. In the playoffs it would just keep going.

I agree it they were to change that seems like a logical way to do it. However, I see an alternative if the one team scores a touchdown then other team still gets the ball but they have to score a touchdown or it's game over. That would be the basic premise but there would need to be a few more details.

All that being said, I say leave the rules as is. If the Seahawks had only scored a field goal Manning would have gotten his chance. These rules apply to all 32 teams so it isn't unfair.

[weazel]

so Knighton thought the Broncos were the better team?

[MasterShake]

I agree it they were to change that seems like a logical way to do it. However, I see an alternative if the one team scores a touchdown then other team still gets the ball but they have to score a touchdown or it's game over. That would be basic premise but there would need to be a few more details.

All that being said, I say leave the rules as is. If the Seahawks had only scored a field goal Manning would have gotten his chance. These rules apply to all 32 teams so it isn't unfair.

Good points. But also the basis of the article is stupid. Just because it was a good game doesn't mean it we were cheated by some arbitrary OT rules and screwed out of some all time great game. What if it was some boring Oakland vs Minnesota game that was tied 6-6? Would we still want new rules then?

Manning had a chance in regulation to do just what Wilson did in OT and instead he threw it into triple coverage and got picked off. If we would have somehow pulled the win out of our ass that day it would have been stealing one. The better team won. Our defense had several chances to stop them on third down.

[Dapper Dan]

Ok. Let's just delete the thread and bring it up next week. Would that be better?

[Slick]

so Knighton thought the Broncos were the better team?

Yeah, I thought that was a strange thing to say. They've dominated Denver in 115 of the last 120 and change minutes.

[Dapper Dan]

Yeah, I thought that was a strange thing to say. They've dominated Denver in 115 of the last 120 and change minutes.

I'd also like to see how Seattle plays in Denver. They are a different team at home. That said, Denver has shown no reason that they're better than Seattle.

[Hawgdriver]

Yeah, I thought that was a strange thing to say.

I think Denver is the better team. He's right.

[Apollo]

I think it's a joke that you can win a game in over-time without letting the other team have a position. It means that a coin-toss can indirectly win or lose a game for you.

I think it would only be fair that teams trade possessions until one outscores the other. Example, one team gets a FG on their possession, the other team needs a FG to continue the game, or a touchdown to win the game, no points result in a loss.

Soccer's penalty shoot-outs may be a dumb way of deciding games, but at least both teams trade chances to take a kick.

[TXBRONC]

Ok. Let's just delete the thread and bring it up next week. Would that be better?

Unless I missed it I don't think anyone said delete the thread.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Yeah, I thought that was a strange thing to say. They've dominated Denver in 115 of the last 120 and change minutes.


Yes, we got dominated in the Superbowl, but I don't see last week that way. Seattle outplayed Denver in the first half of the game, but they only scored 3 points in the second half, which was one more point than our defense scored. All together we outscored them 17-3 in the second half. We outplayed them in the second half of that game.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I think it's a joke that you can win a game in over-time without letting the other team have a position. It means that a coin-toss can indirectly win or lose a game for you.

I think it would only be fair that teams trade possessions until one outscores the other. Example, one team gets a FG on their possession, the other team needs a FG to continue the game, or a touchdown to win the game, no points result in a loss.

Soccer's penalty shoot-outs may be a dumb way of deciding games, but at least both teams trade chances to take a kick.

That's how college football works.

[chazoe60]

I think it's a joke that you can win a game in over-time without letting the other team have a position. It means that a coin-toss can indirectly win or lose a game for you.



No it doesn't. You get the opportunity to stop them just like our defense had Sunday. We didn't lose because of a coin toss we lost because our defense couldn't stop 4 nuns and a 3rd grader in OT.

[Dapper Dan]

Unless I missed it I don't think anyone said delete the thread.

Maybe you missed all the posts implying the thread was unnecessary because it's only whining about the loss.

I think the Overtime format would be an interesting discussion. But people can't seem to do that. If we delete the thread and then bring up Overtime later, maybe people can talk about it.

[chazoe60]

Maybe you missed all the posts implying the thread was unnecessary because it's only whining about the loss.

I think the Overtime format would be an interesting discussion. But people can't seem to do that. If we delete the thread and then bring up Overtime later, maybe people can talk about it.
http://www.arizonafoothillsmagazine.com/solar/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/baby-cry.jpg

[Shazam!]

I think if the team scores on their first possession the other team should have a chance to answer OR they should play a full quarter.

I GUARANTEE if the Broncos got the ball they woulda won, and did exactly what Seattle did to us. At that point Seattle was mortified and on their heels.

[Northman]

I think it's a joke that you can win a game in over-time without letting the other team have a position. It means that a coin-toss can indirectly win or lose a game for you.

I think it would only be fair that teams trade possessions until one outscores the other. Example, one team gets a FG on their possession, the other team needs a FG to continue the game, or a touchdown to win the game, no points result in a loss.

Soccer's penalty shoot-outs may be a dumb way of deciding games, but at least both teams trade chances to take a kick.


That's how college football works.

Thats how the current NFL OT is setup as long as you hold the opposing team to a FG which the Broncos didnt do.

I just dont understand this whining. I dont understand why the Broncos should of been rewarded a possession in OT when they couldnt at the very least hold the Hawks to a FG. If the Broncos can do it during regulation they should be able to do it in OT. The argument that Denver "deserved" a possession is stupid.

[Dzone]

Maybe you missed all the posts implying the thread was unnecessary because it's only whining about the loss.

I think the Overtime format would be an interesting discussion. But people can't seem to do that. If we delete the thread and then bring up Overtime later, maybe people can talk about it.
Well, unfortunately,you get the one or two fan police , wanna be mods, who come on here, not to discuss anything, but for the sole purpose of dictating to people what opinions and topics should and shouldnt be expressed on here.

[Northman]

Good points. But also the basis of the article is stupid. Just because it was a good game doesn't mean it we were cheated by some arbitrary OT rules and screwed out of some all time great game. What if it was some boring Oakland vs Minnesota game that was tied 6-6? Would we still want new rules then?

Manning had a chance in regulation to do just what Wilson did in OT and instead he threw it into triple coverage and got picked off. If we would have somehow pulled the win out of our ass that day it would have been stealing one. The better team won. Our defense had several chances to stop them on third down.

/thread

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Well, unfortunately,you get the one or two fan police , wanna be mods, who come on here, not to discuss anything, but for the sole purpose of dictating to people what opinions and topics should and shouldnt be expressed on here.

Change the subject, this is inappropriate.

[Northman]

Ok. Let's just delete the thread and bring it up next week. Would that be better?

No need to bring it up. Just delete.

[Northman]

I think if the team scores on their first possession the other team should have a chance to answer OR they should play a full quarter.

I GUARANTEE if the Broncos got the ball they woulda won, and did exactly what Seattle did to us. At that point Seattle was mortified and on their heels.

I guarantee had Manning not thrown the late INT we would of won too. See how that works?

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Thats how the current NFL OT is setup as long as you hold the opposing team to a FG which the Broncos didnt do.

I just dont understand this whining. I dont understand why the Broncos should of been rewarded a possession in OT when they couldnt at the very least hold the Hawks to a FG. If the Broncos can do it during regulation they should be able to do it in OT. The argument that Denver "deserved" a possession is stupid.

You're putting words in my mouth; I haven't whined. I only said I like the college system better. I think college OT's are must see TV.

[Northman]

I only said I like the college system better. I think college OT's are must see TV.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

That's totally fine, like I said before, I'm not whining about what happened. I don't think we got ripped off or anything like that. We lost fairly under the current rules.

I just personally happen to like the college system. It's just my own personal opinion. I will stop and watch just about any college over time game no matter who is playing. I think it's exciting.

[Dapper Dan]

http://www.arizonafoothillsmagazine.com/solar/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/baby-cry.jpg

"I'm not from Texas! I'm from Colorado!" :rofl:

[Dapper Dan]

Well, unfortunately,you get the one or two fan police , wanna be mods, who come on here, not to discuss anything, but for the sole purpose of dictating to people what opinions and topics should and shouldnt be expressed on here.

Meh. Nothing new.

[Slick]

Yes, we got dominated in the Superbowl, but I don't see last week that way. Seattle outplayed Denver in the first half of the game, but they only scored 3 points in the second half, which was one more point than our defense scored. All together we outscored them 17-3 in the second half. We outplayed them in the second half of that game.

Yeah, I probably exaggerated a little. I missed a good bit of the 3rd quarter cooking dinner for my Mom.


Well, unfortunately,you get the one or two fan police , wanna be mods, who come on here, not to discuss anything, but for the sole purpose of dictating to people what opinions and topics should and shouldnt be expressed on here.

Agreed. It has affected the football discussion around here lately.

[CrazyHorse]

Current rules that are in place strongly favor the offense. That bodes extremely well for the team that wins the coin toss. Also both teams' defenses seemed pretty exhausted at the end of regulation. I think had the Broncos won the coin toss they would have been able to march down the field for a game winning TD. Besides issues with TV scheduling I don't see why they can't play out a full 15 minute quarter and whoever is ahead when the clock strikes 0:00 wins. It's the absolute fairest way in my eyes. I know the Broncos benefited from the OT rules when playing the Steelers but I still think they're flawed and would like to see them changed.

[Dzone]

So Condoleezza Rice is a whiner too?...LOL..Since she is the next Commissioner of the NFL.Lot of people are talking about the OT rule after Sundays game, but if you talk about it on here youre labeled a whiner. Haha...Discussing changing the rule that got Welker flattened by Thomas, of course had Welker not gotten blasted, we wouldnt be talking about that rule either

"I would have loved to see what Peyton Manning would have done if he'd gotten the football," Rice said.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26586158/condoleezza-rice-talks-broncos-nfl-and-foreign-policy

[Dzone]

Meh. Nothing new.
...You must not be a very good fan with that kind of opinion, Do you even care about your team?
j/k

[Joel]

I was fine with the rules when Tebow took out Pittsburgh, so I can live with what happened. If they were to change though why not just play a full OT quarter and see how it shakes out? No sudden death on a TD, just give the ball back after a score and see who can score more. If its tied after one OT quarter then its a tie. In the playoffs it would just keep going.
100% where I am. I'd prefer doing it that way, but lose no sleep over the current method either. We had a whole drive to stop them any time before they plowed into our end zone if we wanted the ball and a chance to score; we couldn't: Game. We can't pat ourselves on the back for winning a PLAYOFF game with ONE PLAY then complain about a whole drive costing us regular season OT.

A fifth quarter followed by a regular season tie or playoff sudden death would suit me best (both teams get an OT possession before sudden death, so that'd stay the same) but it's not a big deal.

[Joel]

So Condoleezza Rice is a whiner too?
I'd have liked us to get the ball in OT, too—because it'd mean our D made yet another stop, if only another goal line stand holding them to a FG (like the one after we fumbled it away on our VERY FIRST SCRIMMAGE PLAY, or after Manning threw into triple coverage trying to end it in regulation, and very nearly did.) But it ain't like a bone-headed kicker kicked off out of bounds and Seattle therw a couple quick outs to get into FG range and end it: We got them to third down twice, but they made plays to keep the chains moving.

It would've been EPIC to go to Seattle and beat them on DEFENSE (which we almost did.) We could legitimately talk about taking it to the champs, punching them in the mouth and proving ourselves the better team. That's not what happened though, because our D left it all on the field regulation and our offense couldn't get it done to help them out, so that was it. Historys best passing had four full quarters to win that game but only showed up for less than a MINUTE at the end; we can't say our offense never got its chance.

[Northman]

So Condoleezza Rice is a whiner too?...LOL..Since she is the next Commissioner of the NFL.Lot of people are talking about the OT rule after Sundays game, but if you talk about it on here youre labeled a whiner. Haha...Discussing changing the rule that got Welker flattened by Thomas, of course had Welker not gotten blasted, we wouldnt be talking about that rule either

Problem is with Rice's comment is Peyton had a chance with the ball in regulation and threw a INT. A few years ago we saw Peyton vs the Ravens with the ball and he threw a INT. Its not always going to end well even if they changed the OT rule yet again. Someone is going to lose and this time it was Denver. It happens and think the rules are fine. Denver had multitudes of chances to win the ballgame in regulation and didnt get it done. Thats on them.

[ursamajor]

The OT rules are the same for everyone. With the receiving team needing to score a TD to win it on the first drive, it is more than fair for the defending team. You will win some because of it, and lose some because of it. But if you make sure to out score the other guys in regulation it is moot. Whining about sudden death to me, is as asinine in whining about the clock expiring if a team is making a comeback. "Well they give extra minutes in soccer"

[Joel]

Big picture, ya'll: Before the rules changed, the consensus was everyone wanted to receive in OT, 'cause it was sudden death, but SINCE the change the consensus has been everyone should kick, because all the pressure's on the receiving team. Sure, a walkoff TD wins it—but a FG just puts the opponents in four-down territory till they reach FG range, while a walkoff TD STILL wins it. And, of course, if the receiving team doesn't score at all, THEN it's sudden death—and their opponent has the ball!

Manning may have wanted to receive, but that's probably a product of his age and position: Most coaches now want to kick (though Carroll's clearly not among them.) We had butt loads of chances to get it done yet didn't. The way it went, both Ds were gassed by the end of regulation, so whoever got it first was likely to win with a walkoff TD, but we can't say we didn't have our shots.

[Mike]

Denver shouldn't have played like ass in the first three quarters.

[Joel]

Denver shouldn't have played like ass in the first three quarters.
Also a fair point (though a bit unfair to our D, who had a bad 2nd qtr but otherwise played oustandingly well in regulation.) After Mannings Int, it should've been over—Hell, it should've been over before THAT, and would've been without the Ds goal line stand after we gave Seattle the ball in our red zone to start the game, or Wares sack and safety on back-to-back plays, or Moore and Talib running a tip drill for an Int to set up Historys Most MIA Offense in Seattles red zone. Instead of complaining the coin toss cost a shot in OT, we should be grateful our much-malinged D GOT us there.

[Northman]

Denver shouldn't have played like ass in the first three quarters.

Yea, but its not fair. Trophies for EVERYONE! lol

[Joel]

Yea, but its not fair. Trophies for EVERYONE! lol
It's funny, 'cause the NFL actually DOES give out second place trophies (and rings,) which some folks consider more than enough to justify any expenditure and satisfy any fanbase. Then folks blame a vast media conspiracy for Dallas and Pitt having more HoF players, like them having more playoff/championship/SB appearances and wins than ANYONE (OK, SF and Dallas are tied for SB wins, but Dallas still has 2 more NFCCG wins, and more appearances if we count the NFL Championship Games prior to SBs I & II) is just a coincidence.