I think the best system is simply to allow for each team to have 1 possession on the ball. After that, it goes to sudden death. Instead of kick offs, you make substitute the post-safety kicks so it shortens the field a bit for both teams. No more extra points allowed after TD's. Only Two point conversions. 

Other possibility would be just to play another full period. No more sudden death, 15 minute full OT period. Winner is named afterwards. 

This could be all only in the playoffs too. That is totally fine. Leave regularly season as is or modify a bit to protect player safety like you stated.

What's the point of that though?  Didn't we just play 60 minutes and have a tie?  Now we do 1 more possession each to then FINALLY get to sudden death?  Doesn't the team that wins the toss still have the advantage?  So we've accomplished nothing but to extend the game unnecessarily.

The previous format from years ago had the cheap scenario of win the toss and just get a short drive and get into field goal range to win and go home.  That format heavily favored the team that won the toss.  The current format avoids that and actually gives some advantages to the team that loses the toss.  For instance, if they hold their opponent to 3 they can then decide on a 4th down situation in field goal range to either tie it up and give the ball back to their opponent who now only needs another field goal or just go for the win and go for it on 4th down.  Having that information and that opportunity is an advantage.  I'd still take the ball if I won the toss, but at least not everything rides on the toss like before.  Also, not all overtime games are necessarily taking up an entire extra quarter to complete like what you're proposing above would often produce.  The current format is as fair as a sudden death overtime as we're likely to see.  I just don't see the point of having 1 more possession each of non-sudden death before getting to sudden death, especially in a climate of player safety being the reason for a lot of changes to the game.  Defense needs to play a part in this.

I guess I could see 1 possession each if you were forced to go for 2 in overtime as chances are if both teams score a TD one of them isn't going to get the 2 pt conversion, but I still don't like that format as much as the current one because with the current format, the coin flip winning team can make it a sudden death situation right from the get go by driving down and scoring a TD.  It's as simple as the defense of the losing team didn't do its part in that scenario.  These non-sudden death scenarios to get to sudden death after just playing 60 minutes of one of the most physically demanding sports on the planet just don't make a lot of sense to me.

I think you misunderstood what most of us are saying. Most of us are talking about the playoffs only. I for one think they should just go back to no overtimes for regular season games, but they will never do that.

Also, we are trying to make sure both teams get the ball on offense given the NFL has become an "offense-oriented league" where the best offense dictate things. Right now the first possession of OT is not sudden death unless it ends in a TD. 1 more possession is not going to be crazy.

Plus this year was really weird with multiple playoff OT games. Most years, there is not even 1 playoff game with OT.  So we are talking maybe 1 or 2 more possessions for a 2-4 teams every year to determine in route for a Super Bowl. I'm pretty players would be okay with that.

---

What's the point of that though?  Didn't we just play 60 minutes and have a tie?  Now we do 1 more possession each to then FINALLY get to sudden death?  Doesn't the team that wins the toss still have the advantage?  So we've accomplished nothing but to extend the game unnecessarily.

The previous format from years ago had the cheap scenario of win the toss and just get a short drive and get into field goal range to win and go home.  That format heavily favored the team that won the toss.  The current format avoids that and actually gives some advantages to the team that loses the toss.  For instance, if they hold their opponent to 3 they can then decide on a 4th down situation in field goal range to either tie it up and give the ball back to their opponent who now only needs another field goal or just go for the win and go for it on 4th down.  Having that information and that opportunity is an advantage.  I'd still take the ball if I won the toss, but at least not everything rides on the toss like before.  Also, not all overtime games are necessarily taking up an entire extra quarter to complete like what you're proposing above would often produce.  The current format is as fair as a sudden death overtime as we're likely to see.  I just don't see the point of having 1 more possession each of non-sudden death before getting to sudden death, especially in a climate of player safety being the reason for a lot of changes to the game.  Defense needs to play a part in this.

I guess I could see 1 possession each if you were forced to go for 2 in overtime as chances are if both teams score a TD one of them isn't going to get the 2 pt conversion, but I still don't like that format as much as the current one because with the current format, the coin flip winning team can make it a sudden death situation right from the get go by driving down and scoring a TD.  It's as simple as the defense of the losing team didn't do its part in that scenario.  These non-sudden death scenarios to get to sudden death after just playing 60 minutes of one of the most physically demanding sports on the planet just don't make a lot of sense to me.

I think you misunderstood what most of us are saying. Most of us are talking about the playoffs only. I for one think they should just go back to no overtimes for regular season games, but they will never do that.

Also, we are trying to make sure both teams get the ball on offense given the NFL has become an "offense-oriented league" where the best offense dictate things. Right now the first possession of OT is not sudden death unless it ends in a TD. 1 more possession is not going to be crazy.

Plus this year was really weird with multiple playoff OT games. Most years, there is not even 1 playoff game with OT.  So we are talking maybe 1 or 2 more possessions for a 2-4 teams every year to determine in route for a Super Bowl. I'm pretty players would be okay with that.

This is where I am. In the playoffs, its too unfair to see a season go because of a coin toss. Like you say, its an O friendly league now. I think Mahomes would have scored had the coin toss gone the other way. You have to be able to touch the ball in OT, I don't really care if that means some garbage on Fox gets shown later, its a football game, I want to see one team Beat the other, no matter how long it takes. That's competition.

But then I think football is a team game, your D is just as valuable as your O and has the same chances to make plays and do what they are paid millions to do.

---

What's the point of that though?  Didn't we just play 60 minutes and have a tie?  Now we do 1 more possession each to then FINALLY get to sudden death?  Doesn't the team that wins the toss still have the advantage?  So we've accomplished nothing but to extend the game unnecessarily.

The previous format from years ago had the cheap scenario of win the toss and just get a short drive and get into field goal range to win and go home.  That format heavily favored the team that won the toss.  The current format avoids that and actually gives some advantages to the team that loses the toss.  For instance, if they hold their opponent to 3 they can then decide on a 4th down situation in field goal range to either tie it up and give the ball back to their opponent who now only needs another field goal or just go for the win and go for it on 4th down.  Having that information and that opportunity is an advantage.  I'd still take the ball if I won the toss, but at least not everything rides on the toss like before.  Also, not all overtime games are necessarily taking up an entire extra quarter to complete like what you're proposing above would often produce.  The current format is as fair as a sudden death overtime as we're likely to see.  I just don't see the point of having 1 more possession each of non-sudden death before getting to sudden death, especially in a climate of player safety being the reason for a lot of changes to the game.  Defense needs to play a part in this.

I guess I could see 1 possession each if you were forced to go for 2 in overtime as chances are if both teams score a TD one of them isn't going to get the 2 pt conversion, but I still don't like that format as much as the current one because with the current format, the coin flip winning team can make it a sudden death situation right from the get go by driving down and scoring a TD.  It's as simple as the defense of the losing team didn't do its part in that scenario.  These non-sudden death scenarios to get to sudden death after just playing 60 minutes of one of the most physically demanding sports on the planet just don't make a lot of sense to me.

I think you misunderstood what most of us are saying. Most of us are talking about the playoffs only. I for one think they should just go back to no overtimes for regular season games, but they will never do that.

Also, we are trying to make sure both teams get the ball on offense given the NFL has become an "offense-oriented league" where the best offense dictate things. Right now the first possession of OT is not sudden death unless it ends in a TD. 1 more possession is not going to be crazy.

Plus this year was really weird with multiple playoff OT games. Most years, there is not even 1 playoff game with OT.  So we are talking maybe 1 or 2 more possessions for a 2-4 teams every year to determine in route for a Super Bowl. I'm pretty players would be okay with that.

I may not have explicitly said I am for removing overtime in the regular season in my post a few posts up where I said if the league is concerned about player safety yada yada yada..., but I am in fact for that and was only talking about overtime scenarios in the playoffs with you.  Giving each team a guaranteed possession in overtime in the playoffs is a mistake, just like it would be in the regular season if they took that approach there.  It renders the entire 60 minutes that led to the tie meaningless if you're going to allow for another tie before finally saying "ok fine we're going to sudden death" and the team that won the toss at the beginning of the overtime period is getting the ball anyway so we're essentially back to the sudden death format it was prior to the current format except we've extended the game beyond what the previous format would have produced.  Teams with bottom third defenses like the Chiefs this year shouldn't have that deficiency essentially wiped away in overtime situations.  Defense still does and still should have a role.  It's not asking too much of the team that loses the coin flip to stop their opponent from driving all the way down the field and scoring a TD.

If, as the coach of a team with a powerhouse offense and a bad defense, you don't want to be at the mercy of overtime rules and you're driving down the field late in regulation to tie the game, just go for the win instead while the ball and your fate is in your hands.  Otherwise, the current format is just fine in the playoffs.  All it did was remove the cheapness of winning the toss and getting just inside FG range to kick and go home.  That's all that needed to be done.

---

Chiefs fired DC Bob Sutton today.

---

Chiefs fired DC Bob Sutton today.

Seems a little hasty and misguided.

---

Chiefs fired DC Bob Sutton today.

Seems a little hasty and misguided.

They probably watched the game replay where Romo was calling out the Pats plays down the stretch.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Also, we are trying to make sure both teams get the ball on offense given the NFL has become an "offense-oriented league" where the best offense dictate things.

^ When it comes to OT, I believe that the "best offenses dictate things" is a wrong perception.

Again, in 2018 there were 17 OT games (reg season + playoffs)

In only 4 of 17 of those games, the first team to possess the ball won the game. 4 of 17, and that includes the AFCC. 

Brees got the ball first in OT, the Rams defense bowed up, Brees threw an INT. 
Rodgers and Roethlisberger both played in Tie games this year. 

I'm all for eliminating OT in the regular season. It was done before (back in the day), and can be done again. But, I think the OT system in place is fine for the playoffs. 

** I'm curious though: if the Chiefs had won the coin flip and they had gone down to score a TD on first possession, how many people would be complaining about "it's not fair that they won because of a coin flip, the Patriots didn't even get a chance to possess the ball."

I'm sure not many people would be too upset that the Patriots lost without a chance. Throngs of fans would've been in the "Too bad So sad" group for the Pats.

---

Also, we are trying to make sure both teams get the ball on offense given the NFL has become an "offense-oriented league" where the best offense dictate things.

^ When it comes to OT, I believe that the "best offenses dictate things" is a wrong perception.

Again, in 2018 there were 17 OT games (reg season + playoffs)

In only 4 of 17 of those games, the first team to possess the ball won the game. 4 of 17, and that includes the AFCC. 

Brees got the ball first in OT, the Rams defense bowed up, Brees threw an INT. 
Rodgers and Roethlisberger both played in Tie games this year. 

I'm all for eliminating OT in the regular season. It was done before (back in the day), and can be done again. But, I think the OT system in place is fine for the playoffs. 

** I'm curious though: if the Chiefs had won the coin flip and they had gone down to score a TD on first possession, how many people would be complaining about "it's not fair that they won because of a coin flip, the Patriots didn't even get a chance to possess the ball."

I'm sure not many people would be too upset that the Patriots lost without a chance. Throngs of fans would've been in the "Too bad So sad" group for the Pats.

that is a fair point. A lot of people can't stand the pats so after them holding off a come back and winning the game in OT, there was always going to be people playing the "it's unfair" card.

---