Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


25 Jan 2010

MMQB: Vikings Left to Lick Their Wounds

PK starts this one off with an entire first page on the Minnnesota Vikings, since they won the NFC Championsh...oh, wait. Why was that again? Oh, yeah. He then mistakenly mentions the team that actually won the game (since I'm a member of the sports media, I'll follow the line and forget to mention the team's name and mention Brett Favre's instead. Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre). Oh, and he now hates the overtime rule. Of course he does. Then some Tebow, and in tribute to Senior Bowl week, a list of underclassmen. I'm gonna go stick my brain in the dishwasher.

Posted by: Doug Farrar on 25 Jan 2010

116 comments, Last at 27 Jan 2010, 7:50pm by R. Carney

Comments

1
by young curmudgeon :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:11am

PK: "The most compelling player of the era...No matter what you think of Favre -- and it's no secret I think he's the most charismatic and interesting player I've covered" In other news, dog bites man. Saying "it's no secret" is an astonishing understatement. I can only say thanks to a merciful deity that the upcoming super bowl is not a Favre-Manning matchup, because the fortnight of fellation that both would receive from the media would leave them too depleted to play a decent game.

2
by Dean :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:19am

The Super Bowl doesn't need Favre to be a hypefest.

In their never ending quest for “characters” and “personalities,” to make the Big Game “interesting,” the hype-machine will – probably sometime early this week – find Reggie Bush. The very fact that he was once considered by non-experts to be the top pick in the draft will be his qualifications. The fact that he’s an average part-time scatback will be ignored. He’ll be “fresh” and “personable” and “interesting” and “rammed down our throats.” Frequency of Throat Ramming: Think B-list celebrity and Paris Hilton.

In two weeks, I’m predicting you’ll be so sick of hearing about Reggie Bush that you’ll long for the good old days when you learned that Jerome Bettis is from Detroit.

Your only respite will be that when one Acclaimed Celebrated TV Personality is taking a breath in between hyping up Bush, another Media Persona will quickly jump in the pause to remind you that Pierre Garçon is from Haiti (bet you didn’t know that!), and he’s Obviously Playing The Game Today With A Very Heavy Heart.

I hope for all of our sakes that I am wrong.

4
by ammek :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:27am

I think you are forgetting about Jonathan Vilma, who is Also From Haiti.

I fear you are not wrong about Bush. Accepting that the media have to go overboard on a number of personalities in order to fill a fortnight's worth of news space, I would rather they concentrated on Manning, Brees, Wayne, (or the likes of Favre, Revis, etc), who are actually good players; or even Sanchez, because everyone loves a cinderella story; but please not Bush, who is a decent third-down back and above-average punt returner, but not (yet) any more than that.

5
by Mike B. In Va :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:31am

What, you mean the media isn't going to drop everything to cover the Pro Bowl, instead of running down insipid Super Bowl "color" stories? Say it ain't so!

6
by Dean :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:39am

Vilma? Never heard of him. Which skill position does he play?

109
by ammek :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 9:22pm

The same one as Ray Lewis. Swaggerback.

113
by countertorque :: Wed, 01/27/2010 - 12:01am

Nice.

16
by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:37pm

You say "yet" as if we're expecting more of him any day now. But as a guy at the end of his fourth year, are the odds all that great for him to turn into something much more than he is now?

I ask seriously.

98
by t.d. :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 1:07am

I would say that Thomas Jones, Cedric Benson, and Garrison Hearst are all guys that recovered from the 'bust' label after it had been applied to them several years into their careers. None of them became great, but each of them became at least somewhat productive.

13
by Sophandros :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:31pm

I think that you're wrong. There will be a lot of focus on Garcon and Vilma because of Haiti (hopefully, we can raise a lot of money in the relief efforts), The Manning Family (it is the Manning Family Heritage Bowl, after all), Drew Brees, and maybe Reggie Bush because he told Kim that he'd propose to her if they win.

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

17
by Dean :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:40pm

Nice to know that his eternal love for her is contingent upon the outcome of a football game.

47
by Bobman :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:08pm

Hey, if it was not for a 1999 Colts/Dolphins game, my wife would actually like football and maybe me too, instead of hating one and tolerating the other. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which.

51
by Bobman :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:21pm

What's that? Bettis is from Detroit?

Wow, that's so cool, because he played a Super Bowl there a few years ago, didn't he...? Wow, small world, hunh? I wish I knew it back then.... but of course I was in a 5-year coma until just now.

111
by Brendan Scolari :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:54pm

"The very fact that he was once considered by non-experts to be the top pick in the draft will be his qualifications."

To be fair, Reggie was considered the top pick by many/most experts too.

114
by tuluse :: Wed, 01/27/2010 - 2:38am

At least one expert disagreed.

3
by Ryan D. (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:19am

Here's the quote that all of you can have way too much fun with from PK: "Before he went to his postgame press conference, he talked to me quietly for a couple of minutes, then to a couple of others in a growing group around his locker."

10
by bomi3ster2 (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:08pm

Damn, what a douche King is. It's called addressing the media, not addressing Me, and a few other dudes.

40
by Brett Favre (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:34pm

"Peter, a little to the left, and slower. That's it. Keep that up, and I'll give you the first call when I decide to announce when I might consider setting a date for a future press conference that might or might not answer any questions about if I'm thinking about retiring this year, sometime soon, or sometime later. A little slower, Peter. Ahhhh."

7
by starzero :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:40am

that was unreadable.

it's not my first attempt at grasping pk, but i haven't seen it this bad.

8
by Crosseyed and Painless (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:51am

Why am I supposed to like the overtime rule again? I've seen it implied a couple of places on here that anyone that disagrees with sudden death is just a whiner.

31
by Ryan (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:33pm

I think the current rule is fair. The Saints won in overtime due to the Viking's poor special teams coverage and 2 penalties that each gave New Orleans a first down. Both defenses last night performed reasonably well in the second half, so I thought it was anyone's game to win.

Remember from the Wild Card round that GB-ARI had been a shootout, only to see the Cardinals make the big winning defensive play.

42
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:50pm

You may want to note that the second penalty was called despite the linebacker not actually having contact, or at most the slightest contact, with the receiver. The ball was uncatchable in any case. A really terrible call.

I've been saying for a long time that a "first to score four" overtime would be better, and more representative of the game. Nothing yesterday changed my mind.

48
by Bobman :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:13pm

RE: The Ben Leber non-contact DPI. It sure looked that way to me as well, but the camera angles were crappy as hell. I found it very telling (i.e. he probably agrees with us) that Tom Jackson said "well, I guess the refs had a better view of it than I did," last night.

Play call in the huddle: "Tight End basketball flop on two. Ready, break!"

69
by Ryan (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:02pm

I didn't have such a big problem with the DPI, except for the point in the game when it was called. It put NO into FG range. (analogous to getting a call at the buzzer for a shooting foul in b-ball when down by 1)

50
by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:20pm

I like "first to score four. An overtime with no kicking at all sounds even better to me. If it goes to overtime, let it be decided in the end zone (with TDs or, more dramatically, safeties).

44
by Kal :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:59pm

What would be fair is simply playing one more full quarter. If you're worried about not having 'all' the football plays (like college), that's about as fair a choice as you can make.

This especially makes sense in the playoffs, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done everywhere. There's a lot of precedent for it - that's how the basketball OT rules are (albeit a shorter quarter), that's how soccer works.

78
by Ben :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:43pm

I've always thought that having either 3 5-minute overtimes or 2 7.5-minute overtimes would be the way to go for Football. I'd lean toward the 7.5 minute ones, just because it's pretty easy for an offense to milk the clack and waste 5 minutes. If the game is still tied after the first overtime, then go to the next. In the regular season, play until you've reached 15 extra minutes of time, then call it a tie. For the playoffs, just keep adding overtimes until someone wins.

With this rule, I'd also vote for there to be no kickoff at the end of regulation, just let the team who has the ball to keep playing from that spot.

88
by Ben :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 9:27pm

Oh, and each team would get 3 timouts to start the overtime session. That would keep teams from getting in to field goal range, and kneeling out 2 minutes.

9
by Snowbound (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:54am

Don't count out Favre yet. I bet that we'll hear plenty about him during the next couple of weeks.

11
by Paul R :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:08pm

One paragraph:


Then Ryan Longwell would trot onto the field for a field goal of between 45 and 50 yards. But the Vikings got a five-yard penalty for 12 men in the huddle, which is illegal because an extra man or men would create unfair confusion to the defense.

A few paragraphs later:

"The crowd got jacked up for one final defensive stand -- so jacked up, evidently, that an extra back was in the Minnesota huddle, thinking it was a formation that required his presence on the field. Nope. Favre signaled timeout and an official promptly threw a flag. "You can't call back-to-back timeouts,'' said Childress."

Oh well, I don't read PK for his accuracy anyway.

26
by Cory (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:18pm

Does anyone know why the Vikings didn't get a 15 yard penalty for calling two consecutive time-outs? That's what happened to Joe Gibbs, right? Did the refs not see the time-out signal or something? No mention of it on the play-by-play. Or maybe the officials waved it (the time-out) off because of the 12-Men-In-The-Huddle penalty? I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.

28
by Joe T. :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:22pm

Back to back TOs is "unsportsmanlike" if the intent is to freeze the kicker. The offensive team is ignored if they attempt to call consecutive timeouts.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/29/zebra-report-addendum-the-real-answer...

29
by Tom Gower :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:25pm

Test. Bold kill test.

I think PK takes approximately eleven thousand times more grief than he deserves in these threads, but column's like today's, even though it will assuredly take much more heat than it deserves, remind me why he gets a lot of grief and deserves some of it.

12
by jonah_jamison (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:28pm

Let me get this right PK, you can't blame Childress for the loss (though his time management skills and bungled personal decisions rival only Holmgren and Andy Reid. What is it about these West Coast guys and the two minute drill? Did they all have the blue flu the day Bill Walsh went over this?). And given the amount of man-love evident in your weepy-eyed, wistful locker room recollections with Farve, it's not his fault. You then tie the interception and penalty into a causality knot where neither is the fault of the former or later. Then add a bow of hackneyed OT rules changes, all of which lessens the Saints victory into an empty "win" that stole history and greatness, and more bromance columns, from Brett.

Then, on page 2, there is this "it's 4:10 a.m. Central Time as I write this, and there is still the noise of celebration outside my Canal Street hotel." Oh, the nerve of those New Orleans fan! Keeping the great Peter King from his appointment with the sand man. Your use of the word "noise" betrays just how annoyed you are with this turn of events. You could have said, "it's 4:10 and their still partying!", but instead you chalk it up as noise and come across as the peeved, despondent partisan you really are. Can't wait for you to fall in love, all over again, with Peyton Manning during media week.

You sir, are a jackass.

14
by Sophandros :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:34pm

Regarding 4:10 AM, the Saints are in the Super Bowl (as Jim Henderson said on WWL Radio, "Pigs are flying, Hell has frozen over! The Saints are in the Super Bowl!") AND it's Mardi Gras season. Shoot, Drew Brees will be the king of Bacchus next weekend, for crying out loud.

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

21
by Temo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:57pm

I'm always confused-- what time period encompasses Mardi Gras season? I thought that the official Mardi Gras start is not until after the superbowl this year.

32
by Sophandros :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:38pm

The season is technically from Jan 6 (King's Day or the Feast of The Epiphany) through Mardi Gras Day (which is Feb 16 this year). Parades occur throughout the season, though they don't start REALLY rolling nightly until a couple of weeks prior to the day itself. As of today, three Krewes have rolled their parades, but more are coming soon. Bacchus is on the 14th, so Drew Brees may have the Lombardi Trophy with him for that one. I feel sorry for the people who are scheduled on Super Bowl Sunday...

Side note, there is a major election on Feb. 6th in NOLA this year. THAT should be interesting, as well, since the city will soon be rid of Ray Nagin...

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

56
by Some_FF-Player_in_nawlins (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 4:31pm

Actually, almost all Mardi Gras activity that was scheduled for Sunday has either been rescheduled or canceled for this year. It was well decided back when they were 12-0 by most schedulers that the Saints were likely to go to the superbowl and that nothing that could possibly be scheduled would be able to compete with the culmination of 43 or so years of suffering by the fans of New Orleans.

So, the 'bowl gets a no-compete in the Big EZ.

15
by Theo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:35pm

He manages to mention the retirement of Favre, overtime rules and Tim Tebow in 2 paragraphes.
Just saying.

18
by Aloysius Mephistopheles (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:40pm

Echo chamber effect on the PK hate seems to be getting stronger every week. Would make a bit more sense if we were forced to read it, clockwork orange style, with Everclear playing in the background.

/concern trolling

19
by Temo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:50pm

Have you not been around for very long? PK slamming is 70% of the reason to read MMQB.

49
by Bobman :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:17pm

LOL

Reminds me of this oldie:
Man 1: The food around here is absolute poison!

Man 2: And such small portions, too!

20
by Rogersworthe :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:54pm

I'm glad Football Outsiders is joining in on the PK-hatefest.

22
by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:58pm

I wonder if PK ever really thought about how *inherently* arbitrary OT outcomes are. It's the nature of extra time - no matter what you do, you'll end up with a very small sample size, and thus a somewhat random range of outcomes.

Fact of the matter is, most teams over the long run wouldn't have a significantly different OT record even if the games were decided solely by coin toss.

25
by RickD :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:18pm

Repeating a comment I made yesterday: it's a football game, not a scientific process.

Somehow, if you have one 100 meter dash, and one guy wins by five meters, nobody whines about a "very small sample size". You're not randomly sampling a probability distribution!

35
by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:53pm

But we're not talking about a situation where one team is dominant (i.e., winning by five meters). We're talking about a game where teams are tied after already playing sixty minues.

If you change the rules to give both teams a possession, as PK calls for, it'll still be an essentially arbitrary process, as anyone who's watched college OT, or penalty shots in the NHL, or extra innings in MLB, or various playoff scenarios in golf can attest. And it's not clear that it'll be any less arbitrary than the current set-up just because some appeal (itself arbitrary) to "fairness" or whatever is invoked.

45
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:59pm

I'd prefer a "first to score four" rule because it would often encourage teams to play for touchdowns, which is more exciting than forty yard field goals, and more often make red zone defense important, which I think better reflects the nature of the game.

52
by Kal :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:24pm

I don't see it changing that much. It still causes the same 'what if' mentality and punishes some teams over others.

Why not just play an actual quarter? Why not allow some success to ball control teams and teams who play the field position game?

53
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:31pm

I think there would be some push-back from the networks on that, although that may be the case with a first to four rule as well. An extra quarter works for me, too.

64
by MatMan :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:29pm

I'm sure the union would push back pretty hard on that one. Where the players' association is concerned, the fewer minutes these guys play, the better.

89
by Mr Shush :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 9:43pm

I dunno about that. I think it's fair to say that seeing a game as a random sample from a distribution of counterfactual outcomes is . . . almost certainly not strictly speaking true, but probably as true as anything else you're likely to come up with, more true than some and more interesting than most. Certainly if you're interested in addressing the question of why what happened happened, or the question of what is likely to happen in the future - which I think is the attitude of most people who read this site - it's a pretty helpful approach. The attitude to overtime rules I think stems from a preference on most people's parts for the best team on the day winning - and I think it's pretty clear that there are ways of having overtime function that would do that job better while remaining an entertaining sporting contest.

92
by Agamemnon :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 10:11pm

I dunno, maybe it's my cold, but I just read lots of words that made no sense.

59
by LukeM :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:08pm

My overtime proposition is to just let the clock keep going at the end of the 4th if it's tied. Still sudden-death. No increased risk of injury compared to the status quo. Very interesting end-game decisions, and clock management.

65
by Kevin from Philly :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:29pm

So you'd completely eliminate clock management as an important issue at the end of the game? As an Eagles fan I SHOULD be on board with that, but it sounds too much like "extra time" in soccer.

68
by LukeM :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:58pm

I obviously haven't thought about this much, but clock management is not completely eliminated. For example, do you settle for a field goal to get it tied before the end of regulation knowing that, under the new plan, that's equivalent to forfeiting the coin toss and the other team can take it's time trying for the winning score? Do you try to tie the game quickly so you can stop the other team and have possession when the game turns to sudden death?

If the game is already tied, then, under the new plan, you take as much time as you want, but that's the same as the current overtime. The only difference is you don't put a coin toss in the middle of it, so you don't rush to score before the coin toss can take the ball away from you.

103
by Mikey Benny :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:26pm

It doesn't eliminate clock management; if you're down 3 or 7 you still have to manage the clock in the endgame to tie it. It's only if the game is already tied, then first team to score wins. It's my favorite OT alternative.

23
by RickD :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:15pm

Yeah, it really is obnoxious how PK is back in the Favre-worship mode. So Favre throws away two NFC championship games in three years? Who cares! Give more time to him than to the two teams that are actually going to the Super Bowl.

For some reason there appears to be a dangling bold flag. Hope that fixes it.

27
by RickD :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:19pm

And no, it didn't.. Now what?

36
by Paul R :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:57pm

Is the bold gone yet? I wonder if it's my fault, since I emboldened some text a while back.
A similar thing happened in another thread a while ago. I emboldened or itaclicicizedimated some text in one of my posts and got blamed for screwing up the whole thread. The trouble is, it doesn't hang on my monitor, it cuts off just fine. I dunno.

87
by Theo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 8:23pm

don't boldize or italicalize or underlinenize anymore text then in the future; or buy a new monitor.

104
by Mikey Benny :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:28pm

You're really blaming Favre instead of Berrian or Peterson? The pick cost them a chance at a 55 yard field goal. Your blaming of Favre is as bad as PK's boot-licking.

24
by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:17pm

(edited out failed attempt at turning off bold)

30
by andrew :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:26pm

Favre? no, they wouldn't be there without him. and he played great at times.

Peterson? somewhat. But he also played hard, and somehow recovered that one fumble in the middle of half the saints defense.

The defense? heck no. no turnovers, but they held the saints down all second half, they'd be the heroes if they won.

Childress? somewhat. I blame him for the 12 men in the huddle.

The saints? no. they avoided the costly errors, but they didn't exactly sieze it.

The zebras? somewhat. but that stuff goes arond and comes around.

no, the real culprit, whom I blame....

Prince.

33
by Duke :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:39pm

Oh, and he now hates the ovetime rule.

FWIW, he's been banging that drum for a long time. It's not something he just came up with.

(Full Disclosure: Haven't read the article yet)

34
by widderslainte :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 1:40pm

It's been a generation since 1998?

37
by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:03pm

Well, sort of. Kids that were in middle school then are now in their twenties and having kids of their own.

And specifically in the NFL, 11 years is an eternity - what percentage of the league has turned over since then? Obviously, there hasn't been 100% player turnover but it's close to be up over 90%. And among coaches, by my count, 24 of the current 32 coaches had never coached a game as HC in 1998. Hell, Jon Gruden was starting his first year as head coach of the Raiders that year.

105
by Mikey Benny :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:29pm

It's certainly a generation in terms of NFL careers.

38
by sealdude (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:12pm

I can't believe there are actually football fans that like the current OT rules. In all other major sports each side gets a chance: basketball-extra period; baseball-extra innings; hockey-extra period and shoot out. My 13 year old son said it best "Why don't they just play another quarter?"

41
by strannix (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:43pm

I'm actually fairly agnostic on the current rules, but I find arguments like this particularly unpersuasive.

For one thing, both sides do currently "get a chance." For whatever reason, the concept of "defense" is completely ignored by otherwise rational people when discussing OT rules. When a team receives the kickoff to start a game, no one thinks it's a given that they'll score on that possession, even when one of the best offenses in the game is facing one of the worst defenses. Yet when OT is being discussed, we pretend like the team that lost the coin toss is already beaten. It's bizarre, and counter-factual besides (I think the Fox graphic last night said that the team that won the toss is 7-6 is playoff history, which sounds conspicuously like what you'd expect from two teams that are tied after 60 minutes; I guess that's 8-6 now).

Secondly, regarding the specific suggestion of another quarter, I would guess that any team that plays a full extra quarter would be at a severe disadvantage come the next week, plus you have much higher risk for injuries, etc. And you still run a very high probability that the score is still tied at the end of the extra quarter, and what do you do then?

To me, that sounds much, much worse than the current rules.

58
by DGL :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:02pm

If Team A is able to beat its opponent in regulation, while Team B has to go to OT to win, what's the problem with Team B being at a "severe disadvantage" the next week? They weren't able to win in regulation. The number 3-6 seeds in the Division round are at a "severe disadvantage" relative to the number 1-2 seeds -- having to prep for and play a game is a lot more "severe" a disadvantage than having to play one extra quarter -- but no one is advocating for the elimination of the playoff bye week, are they?

As to the "very high probability" that the score remains tied at the end of the extra quarter - in 2009 (regular season and postseason) there were 23 games that were tied with one full quarter remaining to play; 5 of them ended up as ties in regulation. And if a playoff game is tied at the end of the first overtime -- play a second. If hockey can have three-OT games in the playoffs as part of a seven game series, football can go to a second overtime.

106
by Mikey Benny :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:30pm

If being on defense first is equivalent to being on offense first, why doesn't the coin toss winner in OT ever choose to kick first? It's a huge advantage determined entirely by a coin toss. It's patently absurd.

43
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:51pm

I like the extra quarter idea. Particularly in a playoff game. That would actually be much better, imo, than either sudden death or the college overtime system.

But regarding sudden death, it depends on how you define "gets a chance." The Cardinals won their playoff game against the Packers without "getting a chance." And statistically, aren't the all-time OT numbers close to 50-50? So, it's not an automatic win if you get the coin toss. The NFL's system also keeps all the special teams involved in the outcome--the Saints kick return was a huge factor in their winning last night, for example.

90
by Mr Shush :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 9:53pm

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I believe that while historically it's about a 50/50 proposition, in recent years (the last decade or so) the odds appear to have swung substantially in favour of the team receiving the kickoff. Maybe a knock-on effect of rule changes, maybe simply organic evolution of the game - conceivably fluke, but I'm inclined to think not. The issue could probably be fixed by something as simple as moving the overtime kickoff forward ten yards.

39
by The Blow Leprechaun (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 2:29pm

rendering Reggie Bush (seven carries, eight yards) irrelevant except for one short touchdown catch
In other words, doing a worse job of defending Reggie Bush than most of the NFL.

46
by lester bangs (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 3:00pm

Today's Peter King column didn't strike me as any different from MMQB. It's easy to mock and critique, and I'd be doing that if you guys hadn't already covered so many of the bases (thanks for that). But PK didn't branch into any new controversial area with this piece, it's just who he is. A douche about his access. A gusher for the stars. Obsessed with anything right in front of him. Short-sighted.

I'd love to see a bid system for overtime, though I think overtime is more fair than a lot of people do. Don't like it, stop someone. If losing the flip was an automatic death sentence, people would onside kick.

Childress deserves more blame than he's getting. When a kicker says "I can make it from 52" that doesn't mean "cool, we'll play for the 50-yarder."

54
by Vince (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 4:00pm

Even if the outcomes have wound up 50-50, it still says nothing about whether the system is fair. How many teams defer when they win the OT coin toss? Even a team with the best defense and worst offense knows that the odds of scoring are better when its offense has the ball - especially in this era.

55
by PatsFan :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 4:05pm

It's been mentioned in many, many places that when kickoffs were from the 35, OT was pretty much dead-on 50/50, unlike the (IIRC) 56/44 skew there is now in favor of the team to go on offense first.

So why not just move the OT kickoff back to the 35 and see what happens before substantively monkeying around with OT rules?

62
by ammek :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:21pm

It's not just the kickoff placement that has changed. Field goal range has improved enormously, and offensive productivity slightly.

I don't want to see a whole extra quarter if the game is tied after regulation. My feeling is, both teams have had long enough to win, and haven't managed to. Thereafter, fairness be damned.

Soccer is a very different game, but what happens in soccer overtime is that teams get extra-conservative because they are a) exhausted and b) frightened of losing. Often the extra period is a damp squib (especially if followed by the utterly ridiculous penalty shoot-out).

82
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:33pm

"Even if the outcomes have wound up 50-50, it still says nothing about whether the system is fair."

Actually, that would say everything about it being fair. The only reason anyone is debating it is in recent years it's trended to favoring the team that gets the ball first.

97
by grrigg :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 1:04am

Not really, Would a straight coin toss to decide OT games be "fair"? The odds would be 50-50 and yet I dont think people would agree that a random act of tossing a coin is a "fair" way to decide football games.

101
by Theo :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 5:58am

It would be the fairest way possible, giving each team the same chance. But people will always feel it's unfair because they have no influence on it. It's a paradox really.

102
by Eddo :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:41am

Tossing a (non-weighted) coin is perfectly fair; however, saying people want a "fair" outcome is not true. Rather, people want an outcome to be decided by the teams on the field, not by a source neither team controls, like a coin.

108
by Grizzled Old Scout (not verified) :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 7:44pm

The roughly 50-50 OT results are not proof that the the current system is fair or optimal, but it is very strong empirical evidence that the current rules are not *un*fair, which to me reduces the incentive to tinker. Show that this system is broken before attempting to fix it.

57
by Tom C. Huskey (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 4:33pm

Like others, I'm mostly agnostic about the current overtime system. Having said that, I can't let one persistent argument in favor of changing the overtime rules slide.

THE OTHER TEAM HAD A CHANCE. In fact, they had 60 minutes of playtime worth of chances to win the game. And their defense had a chance to stop the team that won the cointoss as well.

60
by Adderley (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:11pm

So am I correct in assuming that when your favorite team's captains stand at midfield for a coin toss in a playoff game, you're feeling pretty indifferent about the result of the flip? After all, even if your team loses the coin toss, they had their chance to win the game in regulation. Further supporting your claim, having the opening possession in overtime is so meaningless that coaches are widely praised for deferring, for example, to take the wind.

No one (sane) is suggesting that the team that loses the toss has NO chance, rather that they don't have an EQUAL chance. What's the harm in allowing the team with the second possession an opportunity to match (or exceed) the production of the team with the first possession? You wouldn't need to change anything else (no need to remove special teams, for example).

61
by Vince (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:13pm

They have a chance - just less of one than the team that wins the toss. There are two phases of the game other than defense, and the current system hands both of those to the team that wins a coin flip. When you lose the toss at the beginning of the game, you still get kicked off to at least once. There's no such balance in OT. At the very least, no matter what other system would be adopted, giving both teams a possession should be a baseline (4 to win would be OK, though). Sadly, the main reason it never is changed is probably due to television - they want it to end as quickly as possible to get to 60 Minutes and Heidi.

(And no, I am not a Vikings fan.)

85
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:59pm

At least in sudden death you see a kickoff; college's system eliminates kickoffs and punts completely. Interestingly enough, in college teams want to go second so they know what they have to do, which is a considerable advantage of its own in their system.

A fairly minor adjustment would be to do a second kickoff and give the other team a shot if (and only if) the first team scores on the opening possession. Force a punt on the first possession, and the game would be sudden death from that moment on as each team would have had the ball on offense. And a defensive TD would still win games like we saw with Arizona-Green Bay.

71
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:23pm

"the defense had a chance to stop them"

argument is so trite.

If the winner of the coin toss got the ball on the opponents 1 yard line, sudden death, the same argument could be made, and frankly, the odds on that are only about 25% different than the current odds.

84
by Tracy :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:47pm

You think that offering a team an opportunity to block a PAT is the same as offering a team the opportunity successfully execute in kickoff coverage and play defense for a series? You think that the expected win probability of the two scenarios differs only by 25%?

100
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 3:38am

The team that wins the coin toss has won roughly 60% of the time. Extra points are roughly 95%.

So, 35%.

63
by R.Carney (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:22pm

Even if all this were true, and the team that won the toss won every overtime game on their first offensive possession without exception (which evidence shows far to the contrary), then each team would still have an exact 50/50 chance to win the game. Why? because coins have two sides.

This being said, this rule has become dated and the first possession more schewed than in past years due to the quality of quarterback play, the evolution of the game to verticality, and the improvement of kickers (2009 postseason anamoly aside).

Regardless,f or a game that is supposed to be a quintessential man's game, the team that loses the toss still has the option to sack up and play D, even if "all hope is lost"

66
by Kal :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:34pm

then each team would still have an exact 50/50 chance to win the game. Why? because coins have two sides.

That's true, but misleading. People aren't arguing that teams don't have a chance; they're arguing that they have no chance based on the skills of the team. Unless you're saying that that 50/50 chance has some relevance based on the offense/defense of the team, the point has merit.

74
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:32pm

"then each team would still have an exact 50/50 chance to win the game. Why? because coins have two sides."

Yeah, while the coin was in the air. Its no longer 50/50 as soon as it hits the ground. Wouldn't it be better if it was 50/50 when play actually started?

I mean, by that argument, why even play OT? Just flip the coin.

116
by R. Carney (not verified) :: Wed, 01/27/2010 - 7:50pm

That's exactly my point. All of the people who argue against a coin flip concede the fact that the team that loses it loses the game. God forbid the team that loses the flip goes out and plays defense. And the flip itself is 50/50..it doesn't get nay more even than that.

67
by andrew :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:57pm

Ref puts ball at exactly center of field on 50 yard line. Each team lines up 11 men in their own end zone wherever they want. Ref blows whistle. A whistle piped into sound system so everyone hears it at same moment. Treat ball as alive fumble. Whoever gets it gets it.

72
by R.Carney (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:24pm

Maybe in the playoffs we could get a model/celebrity to drop a handkerchief at midfield, make it like a chicken run.

95
by Paul R :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:38pm

Then allow forty minutes for all of the injured players to be carted off the field.

I'm still in favor of having the cheerleaders wrestle for it.

70
by MJK :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:03pm

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Keep sudden death. But ditch the coin toss. Instead, whoever got the ball first in the first half gets it. Or, if you don't like that, home team gets it. What bothers everyone isn't sudden death...it's that because of sudden death, getting the ball first is an advantage, and random luck decides who gets that advantage. So get rid of the random luck.

If both teams know, going in, who gets the ball first, then maybe the team that doesn't get it first will try a little harder to win in regulation. If Childress had known that the Saints would get the ball first in overtime, maybe he doesn't run into the line for no gain twice, content to try a 50+ yard FG and go to OT if it misses.

I personally like giving the ball in OT to whoever got it in the 1st quarter, because there apparently is perceived to be an advantage to deferring when you win the coin toss (i.e. it's better to get it first in the 2nd half), as indicated by the fact that the overwhelming percentage of coin-toss winners this season deferred. Saying "if the game goes to OT, the team that had the ball in the 1st gets it first" rebalances this and maybe will make the defer percentage closer to 50%. But I'm OK with saying "home team gets it first". In the regular season, this advantages you half the time and not the other. In both the playoffs and the regular season, it makes home field advantage mean a little more, and maybe would encourage teams to fight harder for seeding and rest fewer starters.

If sudden death absolutely must go, then I would favor a "first team to be leading after 4 total points have been scored, or whoever is ahead after 1 quarter of OT" rule.

73
by Lou :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:29pm

I still prefer the 'first to 4' and 'play the full quarter in OT' options, but i wouldn't mind this. think this would be the simplest rule change, and the only one that even has a realistic chance of happening.

75
by Vince (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:38pm

You're not eliminating random chance if the OT possession is still determined by the flip of the first coin. Even ahead by 4 doesn't do that, necessarily.

76
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:42pm

I don't think eliminating random chance is even desired.

What is desired is removing the huge swing in winning probability (currently about 20%) from winning the coin toss.

IE, a situation where you flip a coin to decide who has the ball, but both teams still have a 50/50 shot of winning is fine. Whne the kick was at the 35, thats exactly how it was.

86
by Bad Doctor :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 8:21pm

Yeah, what sticks in the craw is that a professional sport -- an athletic endeavor, a mass of activity -- should only have its gameplay affected by a passive, arbitrary event like a coin flip when deciding something rather arbitrary ... such as who gets the ball first in the first half vs. the second half. There's no real advantage to winning the flip. (Personally, I'd argue there's probably a small edge to receiving to start the second half, but I think it's a rather small advantage ... and the fact that somebody will surely post and tell me there's actually an advantage to receiving at the start of the game, and the fact that NFL coaches have different approaches for this decision, all help emphasize that it is basically an arbitrary decision.) I don't know what they do in professional tennis, but in high school we'd just spin a racket to decide who serves first, because there was no real advantage, but it had to be decided somehow.

The problem with the overtime coin flip is that there is a decided advantage to winning the toss, and the NFL rules thereby award a great advantage based on meaningless dumb luck on an arbitrary coin flip. If we were designing an overtime rule from scratch today, nobody would agree to such a stupid result. There should either be (i) a rule that locks in who receives the kickoff in overtime beforehand, so the teams can strategize around it, or (ii) the opening of overtime should be adjusted to make the kicking team and receiving team have basically equal footing (by having the kickoff from the 35 (without a K ball?), or just giving the receiving team the ball at its own 20 or 25, as this seems to have led to equitable results before the kickoff rules were changed), or (iii) receipt of the ball should be awarded in a nonarbitrary way, such as the yard line auction. That way, a game wouldn't be heavily affected by the flip of a coin.

91
by Mr Shush :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 10:11pm

You know, back in the days before penalty shoot-outs, tied knock-out soccer matches actually were decided (sometimes after a replay or two) by a coin toss. I don't love penalties (hell, I support Chelsea and England - I really don't love penalties) but both they and a flawed overtime system are better than that.

93
by matt millen's brain (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 10:52pm

The simplest solution would be to just require a score other than a FG decide the game. If necessary to avoid teams taking an intentional safety, a safety could either count as a game ending score or result in the other team taking over at the one yard line.

Either that or the team with the player with the closest personal relationship with Peter King could be declared the winner.

77
by Eddo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:43pm

No, you're not, but at least teams know throughout the entire game who will get the overtime advantage. This would change endgame playcalling quite a bit; a team that knows it won't get the ball first in overtime wouldn't necessarily settle for a tying field goal at the end of regulation.

It's not perfect; I prefer both the bid-for-field-position and must-have-the-lead-AND-the-ball systems, though I dislike the additional-full-period and win-by-four(-or-six) systems. One of the most unnatural things about overtime is the increased drama over a coin flip that follows regulation; MJK's suggestion fixes that.

79
by LukeM :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 6:52pm

Deleted.

80
by Vince (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:11pm

MJK said exactly that - that it would "eliminate random luck," and it does no such thing.

This is tedious, but still better than talking about Peter King.

83
by Lou :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:39pm

which is why i'd prefer they just give it to the home team in this scenario. i don't see a problem with giving one team an advantage in OT, i do have a problem with that advantage being decided by a coin flip.

if both teams know going in that the home team will always have this extra advantage that seems more fair to me.

of course the first time an away team down by 7 scored a touchdown to end regulation, we'd have an endless debate here about whether they should go for 2 or kick the xp.

81
by David :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 7:16pm

The Vikes, as the visiting team, had the opportunity to call the (random) coin toss

They chose to call wrong

They lost

Shoulda chose better

Shoulda, coulda, woulda

94
by snik75 (not verified) :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:38pm

My main problem with OT is that teams only have to try for a field goal. At a certain point the game loses a lot of its drama - a completed pass (or PI) to the 20, for instance. Touchdowns are WAY more exciting than field goals, and goal line stands are some of the best plays in the game. "It's fourth and inches, the crowd goes wild... oh wait, they are just going to kick a gimmie." Now, I know the kicker can miss, but that is low probability, and just angst-producing for the missing team and fans. "Yeah, we really showed them, when their kicker missed a field coal in OT and then we drove 30 yards and our kicker made it..." It is not the best football, and why deprive presumably good games that have gone to OT of the best possible ending?

So, first to score 4, or no FGs allowed in OT, could both produce more exciting finishes than the system we have now. Re: fairness, I like the home team gets it idea, or decided by the initial coin flip. Because if you know the other team gets it first you play harder in regulation, and that is more exciting as well.

99
by Bret19 (not verified) :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 3:03am

I vote for tearing down the goalposts and eliminating place kickers. Touchdowns, two point conversions, and safeties only.

Do others really like any game (overtime or regulation) decided by a field goal? I feel the game would be "better" (more interesting?) without extra points and field goals.

96
by Paul R :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:51pm

I heard an interesting idea for sudden death once: Have the ref auction off the field position.

The ref would start at the one-yard line and move the ball up a yard at a time. The first coach who throws his flag gets the ball at that spot with the remainder of the field to go.

107
by BigCheese :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 4:59pm

"We in the media business are going to spend the next three months writing the Tebow story into the ground, but there are good reasons for it. He's had unparalleled college success"

Really? Unparalleled college success? No other player has won one Heissman and one National Championship? Or more than one of either? Color me surprised... *sigh*

Also, worth nothing that previous to last seasonw e would never have seen the following line being written: "an every-down NFL quarterback." That used to be reserved for RBs and Defensive front players, wasn't it? The game's still evolving drastically as we speak.

- Alvaro

110
by towishimp (not verified) :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 9:52pm

My problem with the current OT rules is that they potentially exclude half (or more, counting special teams) of each each team, based entirely on the results of a coin flip. The game is modelled on three phases, each contributing to the final outcome. When a team wins the toss, drives, and scores, the game ends ends up with some of those parts not contributing to the final outcome. It'd be like sudden death in baseball. You could be a tough guy and say "well, they lost without getting an at-bat, but they shoulda pitched better!", but that misses the point that the other team didn't even get to represent the other half of their team, their hitting. Any new OT rules need to represent the actual game better, if not based just on priciple, but then because the recent trend is toward the superiority of offense, which skews the outcome results. I say a fifth quarter, more if necessary.

112
by Brendan Scolari :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:26pm

I realize I'm in the extreme minority here, but I'd prefer the college overtime rules over anything else. Yes, it doesn't keep every part of the game (no special teams for example), but it's also by far the most exciting option in my opinion. I watch football to be entertained, and I'll take the most entertaining option over anything else.

The college rules also give both teams an equal chance of winning (no arbitrary coin toss advantage) and prevent the incredibly boring outcome of having the team that wins the coin flip drive 30-40 yards and kick a field goal. In college the only way you can win on a field goal is if you keep the other team from scoring at all, and that makes the win feel much more deserved.

When watching a college game I get pretty excited when the game goes to overtime, because you know you're going to get a very enjoyable ending. Many NFL overtimes are never very exciting at all.

Then again, I also think the extra point should be eliminated so I'm not exactly a purist. It'd be much more exciting if after every score teams always had to run a play to get the extra point, and maybe you could make 2 point conversions from the 4-5 yard line or whatever. With the current system there's no reason not to change the channel as soon as a team scores a touchdown, extra points are a waste of time.

115
by tuluse :: Wed, 01/27/2010 - 2:46am

I watch football to be entertained, and I'll take the most entertaining option over anything else.

I watch football to be entertained too, but I find it entertaining because it's an organized activity with rules. You could just have a 22 man game of get the ball in the endzone, and the whistle is only blown once that is done. It would probably be exciting, but it loses everything else that makes football fun to watch.

I find the college rules stupid. Take out 80% of what the defense does, take out all of special teams other than field goal kicking, and take out a lot of what the offense does too (first downs, who cares? Long passes, don't need 'em. Time management, more like fail management).

I'll say that NFL overtime is exciting because the game is so much harder for the defense. You have to stop them from getting to their 30 yard line basically, but again it loses all the other aspects of entertainment.

Just make it first to 4. I have no problem with saying if you can't stop a TD on the first drive you don't deserve the ball, and if you get safetied twice, you definitely deserve to lose.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.