2016-2017 NHL Regular Season Thread, Week 26: Holy Fuck Colorado Was Bad

[Vaspinne]

You guys have some incredibly flawed logic.

I'm on your side buddy

[Judai]

One team doesn't get to start OT with the puck based on a coin flip either. And you didn't answer the question.

FO is basically a coin flip, yea, some guys are better but there are so many luck factors included in a FO that you never know who will win it.

[Judai]

I'm on your side buddy

I was talking about Obs/Nynja bro

[Obsidian]

FO is basically a coin flip, yea, some guys are better but there are so many luck factors included in a FO that you never know who will win it.

At least two players are deciding that and not a referee. The analogy is stupid though because hockey is nothing like football, possession works completely differently. And you still haven't answered the question.

[Judai]

A player chooses heads or tails, so technically a player decides.

I did earlier, it was deemed that the risk to player safety is too great. They have discussed this matter several times in NFL meetings. I get that hockey is a physical sport but football is far more physical.

[Judai]

Your big flaw is thinking the coin flip winner always wins, which is untrue. These are OT stats, before the changes made, which now say the game only ends if a TD is scored on the first possession, and if the first team scores a FG, the other team gets a possession.

Stats on Overtime Coin Tosses (1974-2003)

The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results:

Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%).
The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%).
The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%).
223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%).
86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%).
One game was decided by a safety (0.3%).
There have been 15 ties (4.6%).

The coin flip winner has a better chance but it's not 100% and it's not even a greater than 10% difference.

[Obsidian]

Obs, you're comparing the SB OT to a shootout. You should be comparing it to hockey OT.

We shouldn't be comparing it to hockey at all, one is a fluid game and the other isn't. In one game you need to take possession, in the other you need to play defense long enough to be given possession. In hockey when you get scored on you're not guaranteed to get the puck to try and score back. Football is nothing like hockey, possession doesn't alternate in hockey, it does in football, but it doesn't in OT which is what makes the format ridiculous.

Edit: I don't think the coin flip winner always wins, but the potential for them to win without the other half of their team having to take the field is what makes it unfair to me.

Edit: The risk in regular season games for extended OT is one thing but in the playoffs or at the very least in the Super Bowl I'm sure the players would rather have the chance to take the field.

Edit: I would kill to have been at the game that was decided by an OT safety.

[Judai]

I'm pretty sure the players are actually the ones who don't want longer OTs but I'm not 100% sure.

[Vaspinne]

Your big flaw is thinking the coin flip winner always wins, which is untrue.

I disagree. The big flaw in their thinking is that it's not fair that the other team didn't get a chance. Which is bullshit. Atlanta had plenty of chances to score or get a stop throughout the entire game. They succeeded in the first half but failed miserably in the second. They blew an unprecedented 25-point lead (the biggest SB comeback before that were 3 10-point deficits).

In OT, their defense was unable to get a stop. To bad. That's 100% their purpose. They had 1 job, stop shitass Tom Bardy and they couldn't. Obs and Nynja can keep yammering "well, it wasn't fair guys. The coin toss wasn't fair guys. The other team didn't get a chance to score guys". Football isn't just about getting a chance to score, it's also about stopping the other team from scoring. Which I've already gone over +_+

[Obsidian]

Also, are the college rules the same as what I'm saying? Because what I want is the current NFL OT rules with the exception that an opening TD can't outright win you the game.

[Judai]

that is also a valid point Vasp.

I'll say that I personally like College Football OT rules and think it could be adapted to the NFL but there are reasons it hasn't been done yet, and the main one is injury concerns.

College rules have each team getting a possession starting on the 35 or so and you keep going until someone stops the other. I think after 3 OTs or something, you have to start going for 2 after TDs as well.

[Obsidian]

I disagree. The big flaw in their thinking is that it's not fair that the other team didn't get a chance. Which is bullshit. Atlanta had plenty of chances to score or get a stop throughout the entire game.

This is as flawed as any other argument here. The Patriots had as many chances as Atlanta did, plus one more in OT. The game was tied, OT is a completely new game, everything that came before is irrelevant. Both teams were clearly equally capable of scoring and defending or the game wouldn't have ended in a tie.

[Judai]

Article on College OT rules if you care

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...-rules-process

[Vaspinne]

This is as flawed as any other argument here. The Patriots had as many chances as Atlanta did, plus one more in OT. The game was tied, OT is a completely new game, everything that came before is irrelevant. Both teams were clearly equally capable of scoring and defending or the game wouldn't have ended in a tie.

Actually, if you look at possession time, 1st downs and number of snaps, the Patriots had double what Atlanta did in all 3 categories. So saying both teams were equally capable by the end of the game is pretty much bullshit.

Atlanta was completely shutdown in the 4th quarter. Offensively and Defensively. Couldn't score and couldn't stop the other team from scoring. So saying "OT is a new game" is fucking stupid, because it's purely a continuation of shit that's already happening, IE, 1 team having all the momentum offensively and defensively and the other team being unable to do anything at all.

[NynJa]

A faceoff is paramount to a coin flip, but its not a coin flip...as i said, Bergeron isnt a 60% on the draw cause hes lucky.

[Vaspinne]

A faceoff is paramount to a coin flip, but its not a coin flip...as i said, Bergeron isnt a 60% on the draw cause hes lucky.

Winning the toss doesn't guarantee that team wins the game either. Defense still has to do their job which is 100% my argument here.

[Judai]

A faceoff is paramount to a coin flip, but its not a coin flip...as i said, Bergeron isnt a 60% on the draw cause hes lucky.

out of all arguments, this is literally the dumbest one but stick to it all you want.

[Richybear]

Ok, so CFL OT is similar to the college OT model.
See what happens when the CBA gives my team their mandatory 5 day zZzZzzZzzZzZz

[Obsidian]

Article on College OT rules if you care

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...-rules-process

I'll read this when I get home because I'm interested but sbnation's mobile site is kinda poopy.

Actually, if you look at possession time, 1st downs and number of snaps, the Patriots had double what Atlanta did in all 3 categories. So saying both teams were equally capable by the end of the game is pretty much bullshit.

Atlanta was completely shutdown in the 4th quarter. Offensively and Defensively. Couldn't score and couldn't stop the other team from scoring. So saying "OT is a new game" is fucking stupid, because it's purely a continuation of shit that's already happening, IE, 1 team having all the momentum offensively and defensively and the other team being unable to do anything at all.

It's a new game as far as rules are concerned. Possession doesn't carry over, time starts over, timeouts are given back. Nothing that happened in regulation has any influence on what happens in OT from a procedural standpoint. So it's a new game. To say the Falcons couldn't do anything in the 4th so they should lose is pretty stupid because you could just as easily say the Patriots couldn't do shit the entire first half so why should they win? You can't say one was better than the other, because THEY TIED.

Did the Falcons shit the bed? Absolutely. Does that mean they shouldn't have had a chance to score in OT? No.

[Vaspinne]

Did the Falcons shit the bed? Absolutely. Does that mean they shouldn't have had a chance to score in OT? No.

They did have a chance. And their defense let that slip away. Simple as that.

There's no point arguing with you because you're completely ignoring what I've been saying this entire fucking time. The defense is just has important as the offense. THE DEFENSE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE OFFENSE. Half the team couldn't get the job done, so the whole team lost.

You're arguing "half the players fucked up, so the other half should still get to play."