**Official 2015-16 NFL Week 16 'Ohh...dell' Thread**

[Capt Caveman]

Bill B will be ravaged by the Boston media tomorrow, WTF, BOTH defenses were getting tired in the 4th, you've got Tom F-ing Brady as your QB and you tell Slater if we win the toss to kick?. This is not the first mega-boner by BB, in the 18-1 SB he had a choice of a FG try from 44yds or go for it needing FOURTEEN YARDS, did you not notice your franchise QB getting rag-dolled out there by the Giants front 7, he went for the 1st down, failed, Pats lose the game by 3.

I think Bill B believed his D could hold the Jets to a punt and that would leave Brady to only have to get into FG range, giving Gostkowski his best chance to win. Really hope McCourty can come back healthy for the playoffs. He's the glue of the secondary. And hopefully Vollmer isn't too injured.

 

[emperus]

Bill B will be ravaged by the Boston media tomorrow, WTF, BOTH defenses were getting tired in the 4th, you've got Tom F-ing Brady as your QB and you tell Slater if we win the toss to kick?. This is not the first mega-boner by BB, in the 18-1 SB he had a choice of a FG try from 44yds or go for it needing FOURTEEN YARDS, did you not notice your franchise QB getting rag-dolled out there by the Giants front 7, he went for the 1st down, failed, Pats lose the game by 3.

Bad coaching. Belichick seems to be traumatized by the Special Team breakdowns. This has been going on for some weeks and the lack of aggressiveness to end halfs is worrisome.

I didn't expect to win this game. But to know that we could up and it came down to some bad coaching makes it sting more.

That being said. I think it's better that we see the Jets than the Steelers in the playoffs. We will absolutely beat the Jets when/if we get back Edleman and Amendola on offense and Chung and McCourty on D. The run game suffered without Chung out there. The Jets won, but I'm not sure how much confidence they can possibly get out of this win.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Bill B will be ravaged by the Boston media tomorrow, WTF, BOTH defenses were getting tired in the 4th, you've got Tom F-ing Brady as your QB and you tell Slater if we win the toss to kick?. This is not the first mega-boner by BB, in the 18-1 SB he had a choice of a FG try from 44yds or go for it needing FOURTEEN YARDS, did you not notice your franchise QB getting rag-dolled out there by the Giants front 7, he went for the 1st down, failed, Pats lose the game by 3.

I'm not convinced BB made that call. He may have basically defended his player post game by saying he did but come on that just doesn't make any sense at all. Even Mike Martz would agree with me.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Hah wtf. Rams punter Hekker:

http://spiral.nfl.com/s/STsrhMPPQs/rams-punter-draws-penalty

 

[emperus]

I'm not convinced BB made that call. He may have basically defended his player post game by saying he did but come on that just doesn't make any sense at all. Even Mike Martz would agree with me.

He made the call. Even told the Ref prior to the coin flip that he wanted to kick it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

He made the call. Even told the Ref prior to the coin flip that he wanted to kick it.

That's just so unbelievable. I'll need a great NFL tactical mind to explain the logic to me.

 

[zinfamous]

Bob Costas with some lame argument about the current OT rules:

"the kicking team should, at least, have a chance to match the receiving team's scoring chance (whether FG or TD) on a second possession, to maintain fairness and" ....blach blah blah

I think the current OT rules are perfect, and much better than the NCAA rules (which I used to prefer--and not sure if they changed them recently)

The previous OT rule was, certainly unpopular and I do agree that they should have been changed, but I did eventually come around to the argument that those who favored the "real Sudden Death" first score wins format:

--Your defense is part of the team. They have a job. Just as the offense does. If they fail to do their job, it is equal to the offense being able to succeed/fail to march the ball close enough for a field goal.

Yes, I get that. But the numbers still never added up--as it is, as we all know, far more favorable to march far less yards for an NFL-caliber kicker to ice the game, thus turning an unfair statistical favor to a coin toss. In the end, I think that variable still holds grater argument for the current rule.

The thing I really like about the current rule, is that now the defense is even more rewarded for creating a turnover. Not only does the offense have a fair chance to match score by giving the defense a more favorable chance to defend from a game-winning TD, but a turnover on first possession is now far more punishing. It effectively negates, I think, that coin toss advantage.

TLDR: Shut up, Costas.

 

[zinfamous]

That's just so unbelievable. I'll need a great NFL tactical mind to explain the logic to me.

BB has made the same call before, I thought? And in the playoffs, no less?

oh wait...or was that Arizona vs Greenbay in 2009? er, something.

anyway, not choosing to give the ball to Brady to win your game, when that choice is yours to make, is almost as dumb as choosing to not give the ball to Marshawn Lynch to win the game that you had essentially just won.

Almost--that last call was even dumber.

 

[purbeast0]

i don't like the NCAA OT rules either. it's basically the football equivalent of a shootout, which i think is retarded as it is already to determine the outcome of a game in any sport (hockey, soccer).

 

[emperus]

BB has made the same call before, I thought? And in the playoffs, no less?

oh wait...or was that Arizona vs Greenbay in 2009? er, something.

anyway, not choosing to give the ball to Brady to win your game, when that choice is yours to make, is almost as dumb as choosing to not give the ball to Marshawn Lynch to win the game that you had essentially just won.

Almost--that last call was even dumber.

I think he made the call 2x. And once was in a playoff game. But, this call like running the clock out in the 2nd seems like he's playing from fear.

 

[emperus]

That's just so unbelievable. I'll need a great NFL tactical mind to explain the logic to me.

His logic is that he believed the D would hold them, force them to punt and then they would get the ball back in good field position since his offense was struggling.

Seems like he out-thought himself.

 

[Anubis]

Bob Costas with some lame argument about the current OT rules:

"the kicking team should, at least, have a chance to match the receiving team's scoring chance (whether FG or TD) on a second possession, to maintain fairness and" ....blach blah blah

I think the current OT rules are perfect, and much better than the NCAA rules (which I used to prefer--and not sure if they changed them recently)

The previous OT rule was, certainly unpopular and I do agree that they should have been changed, but I did eventually come around to the argument that those who favored the "real Sudden Death" first score wins format:

--Your defense is part of the team. They have a job. Just as the offense does. If they fail to do their job, it is equal to the offense being able to succeed/fail to march the ball close enough for a field goal.

Yes, I get that. But the numbers still never added up--as it is, as we all know, far more favorable to march far less yards for an NFL-caliber kicker to ice the game, thus turning an unfair statistical favor to a coin toss. In the end, I think that variable still holds grater argument for the current rule.

The thing I really like about the current rule, is that now the defense is even more rewarded for creating a turnover. Not only does the offense have a fair chance to match score by giving the defense a more favorable chance to defend from a game-winning TD, but a turnover on first possession is now far more punishing. It effectively negates, I think, that coin toss advantage.

TLDR: Shut up, Costas.

sudden death is always the worst idea no matter the sport

OT should be another period of time and whoever has the most points when its over wins, no matter who scores what first

 

[zinfamous]

sudden death is always the worst idea no matter the sport

OT should be another period of time and whoever has the most points when its over wins, no matter who scores what first

I tend to agree, but it doesn't work so well for football.

sudden death ignores the standard that you have an entire half of your output--the defense--that should be considered as equal participants in the success of the outcome.

But that is a unique characteristic of football: defense is truly useless in baseball:

there is a flat standard once you hit MLB that, let's be honest with ourlseves, "Errors" are the only real measure of defense. come on (that isn't a criticism of skill at that level, it is simply that you have the same players playing both roles, so it is such a flat measure in the end)/ defense is more important in basketball, hockey, whatever...but you are still working with the same squad.

...that last parenthetical is important. In all other sanctioned major sports team leagues, your defense squad is the same as your offense squad--for the sake of argument let's ignore line changes in hockey which, more or less, merges the gap between football and all the others--but football is the only sport where you have an entire squad dedicated to do one job: prevent scoring.

To this end, discounting OT sudden death rules in football is an acceptance that defense doesn't matter in the one sport where it matters more than any other--where you have effectively acknowledged that half of your workforce is less relevant than the other.

and effectively, it is putting the game into the realm of statistical chance, which is never acceptable for athletic competitions.

 

[lupi]

sudden death is the best, college is the worst. there are three distinct elements to a football game and the sudden death condition truly puts an emphasis on all three. and as we know looking at statistics since they started meddling with it, there has been no change of significance to the results.

 

[Adul]

That's just so unbelievable. I'll need a great NFL tactical mind to explain the logic to me.

1 word. Arrogance

 

[Phoenix86]

His logic is that he believed the D would hold them, force them to punt and then they would get the ball back in good field position since his offense was struggling.

Seems like he out-thought himself.

If I'm understanding things right, he thought he could kick AND pick the side to defend. I think it's one or the other, you pick to kick/receive OR pick the side. He called to kick AND thought he could pick the side. Should have just called the side if that was his plan.

Certainly over thunk it either way.

At any rate, I think he made the wrong call and should have just opted to receive it. If their O is that much a bust, you win the field possession game if you don't score on the first drive, but you always give your offense a chance first. The rules of OT favor the first team getting the ball, so you go with that.

 

[emperus]

If I'm understanding things right, he thought he could kick AND pick the side to defend. I think it's one or the other, you pick to kick/receive OR pick the side. He called to kick AND thought he could pick the side. Should have just called the side if that was his plan.

Certainly over thunk it either way.

At any rate, I think he made the wrong call and should have just opted to receive it. If their O is that much a bust, you win the field possession game if you don't score on the first drive, but you always give your offense a chance first. The rules of OT favor the first team getting the ball, so you go with that.

Well, the "trying to pick the side to defend" was on Slater. Belichick, told the referee that if he won the coin he wanted to receive. Slater acknowledged that he goofed thinking he could pick the side as well.

 

[Capt Caveman]

1 word. Arrogance

Or having more faith in your Defense than your Offense at the time.

If I'm understanding things right, he thought he could kick AND pick the side to defend. I think it's one or the other, you pick to kick/receive OR pick the side. He called to kick AND thought he could pick the side. Should have just called the side if that was his plan.

Certainly over thunk it either way.

At any rate, I think he made the wrong call and should have just opted to receive it. If their O is that much a bust, you win the field possession game if you don't score on the first drive, but you always give your offense a chance first. The rules of OT favor the first team getting the ball, so you go with that.

Slater needed to say that NE deferred, letting the Jets to decide to Receive then NE would have been able to pick the side that they would defend. NE screwed this up as they had done this before against Denver correctly.

 

[emperus]

1 word. Arrogance

Yeah, no matter the outcome of that call, Belichick has literally been at the top of the NFL for over a decade. We can all disagree with his decision, but he's earned enough respect to make whichever one he wants.

I remember a game, I think it had to be back in early 2000. The Pats were down by 1 backed up at their goal line with maybe 4 minutes left in the game. Belichick elected to take an intentional safety putting Denver up by 3. He then kicked off, his defense held to a 3 and out. Brady got the ball back and scored the winning touchdown. That call took some balls.

Btw. NE without it's top 3 receivers and starting safeties took the Jets to overtime. Yet, hearing the Jets talk, it sounds like they just won the Superbowl.

 

[JD50]

Bob Costas with some lame argument about the current OT rules:

"the kicking team should, at least, have a chance to match the receiving team's scoring chance (whether FG or TD) on a second possession, to maintain fairness and" ....blach blah blah

I think the current OT rules are perfect, and much better than the NCAA rules (which I used to prefer--and not sure if they changed them recently)

The previous OT rule was, certainly unpopular and I do agree that they should have been changed, but I did eventually come around to the argument that those who favored the "real Sudden Death" first score wins format:

--Your defense is part of the team. They have a job. Just as the offense does. If they fail to do their job, it is equal to the offense being able to succeed/fail to march the ball close enough for a field goal.

Yes, I get that. But the numbers still never added up--as it is, as we all know, far more favorable to march far less yards for an NFL-caliber kicker to ice the game, thus turning an unfair statistical favor to a coin toss. In the end, I think that variable still holds grater argument for the current rule.

The thing I really like about the current rule, is that now the defense is even more rewarded for creating a turnover. Not only does the offense have a fair chance to match score by giving the defense a more favorable chance to defend from a game-winning TD, but a turnover on first possession is now far more punishing. It effectively negates, I think, that coin toss advantage.

TLDR: Shut up, Costas.

+1

He's just trying to start a controversy that I haven't heard ANYONE talking about up until that point. I'm so sick of them changing rules just for the sake of change.

 

[Svnla]

Goodness the Fins was bad.

How bad was it?

Played at home, behind less than a TD, 1st and goal at the 5 yard line but unable to get in by 3 tries.

Fourth down, after Indy called a timeout, Fins QB got sacked because half of the Fins offense linemen did not move while the center snapped the ball to the QB.

Goodness, it was bad, nope, it was horrible to watch.

 

[edro]

In a league where scores continue to rise, sudden death should not be used.
Both team offenses should be given equal opportunity.

I loved that they require a TD to win sudden death, but I would like it even more if they continued until a team didn't score a TD. (take kicking out of the tie situation)

 

[dainthomas]

Wow injuries are piling up for the Hawks. Let's see: top two running backs out, two tight ends out (after Willson leaves), a top receiver out. Center didn't start. No shock there was no running game when you're basically starting practice squad guys.

Fortunately Lynch's trainer says he'll be ready to go whenever they need him. Which would be now.

 

[Phoenix86]

Well, the "trying to pick the side to defend" was on Slater. Belichick, told the referee that if he won the coin he wanted to receive. Slater acknowledged that he goofed thinking he could pick the side as well.

Not sure where you are getting that from.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ter-followed-instructions-defer-ot-possession

Patriots coach Bill Belichick confirmed he instructed Slater to choose to kick if New England won the toss, even though overtime rules allow a team to win outright if it scores a touchdown on its opening possession.

"Before we went out for the toss, Coach told us that if we won the toss, we wanted to kick off," Slater said.

edit: It seems Bilichick thought he could hold them to a field goal or less, then at least score a field goal to even it or win if they stuffed them.

 

[emperus]

Not sure where you are getting that from.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ter-followed-instructions-defer-ot-possession

Patriots coach Bill Belichick confirmed he instructed Slater to choose to kick if New England won the toss, even though overtime rules allow a team to win outright if it scores a touchdown on its opening possession.

"Before we went out for the toss, Coach told us that if we won the toss, we wanted to kick off," Slater said.

edit: It seems Bilichick thought he could hold them to a field goal or less, then at least score a field goal to even it or win if they stuffed them.

Yeah, I mis-typed. I was speaking to Slater being the one who goofed thinking he could both choose to kick and pick the side. Belichick had already directed the referee that he wanted to kick if they won the toss.

Should have been.

Well, the "trying to pick the side to defend" was on Slater. Belichick, told the referee that if he won the coin he wanted to Kick. Slater acknowledged that he goofed thinking he could pick the side as well.