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

[TABF]

He's a writer for the Denver Post and also on Mile High Sports radio(really the only sports station in Denver)for the morning drive time. He likes to push buttons but he has an opinion even if it is often different than most Broncos fans and is often very critical of the coaches and players. He's had a lot to say about both McCoy and John Fox.

Hey Broncos...

1. This sort of OT system has been in place for many years, and a version giving the other team an actual shot at a possession was built in to fix it. I'm sure your team has benefited from this system many times (just as every other team). Next time call heads you whiners.
2. If you didn't issue your defense roller skates they wouldn't have been on their heels the entire OT possession.
3. Stop them or hold them to a FG and this idiot doesn't have a reason to whine.
4. You're good, but not good enough to lose a close game.
5. Not even the great Wes Welker could save you from Seattle. (insert any quote from the move Friday)
6. Seattle has your number move on or get a better defense.
7. Who gives a crap what nine head P. Manning has to say. The only time I want to hear him speak is when he is hosting SNL. He is actually pretty good on that show.
8. Its so sad that the lowly Chargers found a way to beat the Sea Chickens, but you slugs found a way to lose. HaHaHa.
9. Why in the hell hasn't John (Mr. Ed) Elway spent some of his millions to get his two front teeth grinded down just a lil bit...

Off Comedic Soap Box...

[Mister Hoarse]

Uh. Us stoners take offense to that. Just kidding. We're too stoned to be offended by anything.

Go Chargers.

Weeding Comprehension logo:

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

We're fanboys here. So if a reporter goes on a talk show and comes off like your average internet message board geek, fawning over the players on the team, not appearing to have spared any objectivity, then you're not being a professional, you're a fanboy. That's why Peter King gets made fun of, because he's clearly more a fan of a certain player/team, and loses all his objectivity because of it.

Uh, I'm not a fanboy. I can be somewhat objective about my team.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

To be fair, other than the fanboy that wrote the ridiculous article, is anybody else even talking about changing the rules? Maybe they are, but haven't paid attention. Manning's quote and Harris Jr's quote aren't that bad in and of themselves.

It puts a premium on the coin toss

He seems to be lamenting the format. Frankly he should never touch on that subject given the fact that the League has already amended the rules for his benefit once.

[KNSD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/sports/football/06overtime.html?_r=0

As it turned out, 19 regular-season games went to overtime. Just two were decided on the first possession, and both were won on a field goal. In the other 17, both teams touched the ball. The competition committee noted that starting in 1994, teams that won the overtime coin toss went on to win the game 59.8 percent of the time, 34.4 percent of the time on the first possession.

Not so great advantage afterall.

[thelightningwill]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/sp...time.html?_r=0

As it turned out, 19 regular-season games went to overtime. Just two were decided on the first possession, and both were won on a field goal. In the other 17, both teams touched the ball. The competition committee noted that starting in 1994, teams that won the overtime coin toss went on to win the game 59.8 percent of the time, 34.4 percent of the time on the first possession.

Not so great advantage afterall.

If they aren't counting ties, that's almost a 20 percent advantage to the team who wins the toss. If the coin-flip winner gets 60-percent of the game victories, the coin-flip loser gets only 40 percent. I think that's a pretty great advantage.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Word to the wise: don't get into overtime. Win the damn game.

[Gwynning_Spirit]

He's right, they should change the OT rules... back to the way they were before, and then quit dicking around with the damn game.

I disapprove of the word pejorative, and all donk fans can Kiszla my ass in general for whinnying about bighead having to an L once in a while. When the only thing you have going for you as that you're not a Raiterds fan, that's not saying a hole lot with the emphasis on a hole.

[Heatmiser]

I think all of us Bolt fans knew this was going to happen? I watched the game with my son and told him after that on Monday, the media would be clamoring to change the overtime rules. He asked why and I said because poor Peyton didn't get his chance. He said no way would the NFL do that for one player and then I reminded him that the NFL already instituted the current NFL rules because poor Peyton didnt get a chance against the Chargers a few years back.

If the Broncos had won the toss and won the game on the first drive, no one would say anything other than how great Manning is. He is a great QB, perhaps the best to ever play (as a pure QB-passer). But it does get sickening some times.

TG

[Asela]

This Broncos fan, is why you play 60 minutes of football, not just 60 seconds at the end of regulation.

Sorry, but my feeling would be the same if it was the Chargers as well. You earned the loss, suck on it.

Didn't this happen exactly to the Chargers in 2013 vs Washington? In OT, they marched down the field and scored a TD. Our defense failed to keep them out of the end zone, game over. I didn't hear anyone crying nationally about rule change requirements when this happened to the Chargers. Should the OT rules get changed to the Peyton Manning "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to" OT rule?

Last I checked, the 11 guys on defense are part of the Broncos' team as well. They got plenty of chances at stopping the Seahawks and making a play, but they didn't. Also, Manning had 59 minutes to score more than 12 points, why didn't he put it on himself that he didn't earn his paycheck?

I personally have always felt the current system is unfair to the team that had the lead. Imagine if the other team tied it up, and then won the coin toss and score (previous system) or score a TD (current system). Your defense has to play back to back with no rest, and likely gassed and your offense gets passed up twice without being able to respond.

I think, the team that tied it up, should always have to KO to the opponent in OT to be fair. (They can still try an onside kick). Realistically, the team that caught up to tie the game already has the advantage of momentum and a gassed opposing defense. Is it fair to a defense that they be on the field on back to back possessions when their team had the lead in the first place? "Fair" can be a very subjective definition, depending on your perspective.

If you're a coach, grow some balls and instead of playing safe for OT, win the game in regulation. Dennis Green went for the 2pt conversion instead of going into OT when he was the HC of the Vikings. ShanaRat did the same in thing in the infamous Hochuli blown call game. Shanahan went for the 2pt conversion knowing the Chargers D was still stunned about the "non-fumble" fumble. Shanahan later said in interview, he didn't want to lose the game on the flip of a coin.

[Asela]

He seems to be lamenting the format. Frankly he should never touch on that subject given the fact that the League has already amended the rules for his benefit once.

They changed the pass interference and illegal contact rule after the Pats defenders mugged Manning's receivers back around 2006-7. And this year, we have the "emphasis" rule interpretation change after the Seahawks shutdown Manning's receivers in the SuperBowl in an embarrassing loss

Why would Manning stop whining now???

[sandiego17]

It puts a premium on the coin toss

He seems to be lamenting the format. Frankly he should never touch on that subject given the fact that the League has already amended the rules for his benefit once.

I get that and he's a complete tool as are all Mannings, but I don't think he's wrong.