I think OT rules are good for regular season, however, for playoffs, what if they just got rid of field goals altogether. Make the better team score a TD. One chance to match. Last nights game would have dragged on, but maybe not if SF never got an initial TD. But kickers will eventually evolve to regularly make 60 yard fgs…Sort of takes away from the game.
Should NfL just scrap playoff FGs?
- Thread starter Pitt2006
- Start date
pittdan77
Athletic Director
As a former OL-man who has always hated kickers, I'd be fine with just eliminating kicking specialists from the game. Would be way more interesting to see the guy who scores the TD attempt an extra point. No kickoff returns last night so nobody will miss that play. If you really feel like you need it, have teams declare that it has to be punted. But yeah, kickers suck.
They will never do something that prolongs the game unless really needed.
Plus that fundamentally changes the game. It’s like saying no free throws in OT hoops. The college OT already takes out other special teams. I can’t see the pro OT doubling down on that concept.
Plus that fundamentally changes the game. It’s like saying no free throws in OT hoops. The college OT already takes out other special teams. I can’t see the pro OT doubling down on that concept.
No one listens to my perfect idea (now I'm actually starting to sound like SMF)....if first team scores the second team gets one chance to best them and must do so..Sudden death if neither scores on initial possession..Only stipulation is that if the first team scores a td they are awarded 7 points with no extra point. Done.
It played out like that last night. However, the fg for the Chiefs would have never been an option to tie in OT.
Last edited:
That was the second OT in the history of the Super Bowl. So let’s overreact and change everything that we can.
The two-point conversion derby is not fun. It took the excitement out of longer college OTs.
The goal posts should rotate so the snap has to be timed with the rotation.
and a shark with a frickin’ laser beam attached to its head in a tank behind the kicker would be a nice touch also...
I can agree with that, but the basic OT with trading possessions from the 25 is fun to watch IMO, and it usually didn't last too long.
Another thing that would make OT less likely is scrap the XP kick and adopt the XFL XP system, with 1 (from the 2), 2 (from the 5) and 3 (from the 10) point conversions, that takes the scoring away from traditional norms like 3, 7, 10, 14, 17 etc. making ties less likely.
I mean, the SF K literally had a PAT blocked because he kicked it so low and that likely decided the game. So I'll say no.
So as OP I was pretty wrong. I also did not realize the playoff OT rules differed such that even if SF had scored a TD KC would have gotten a chance to match the TD. That makes more sense but they should have deferred with those rules to know what they needed to get.
Deferring is the desired path ONLY if you're willing to go for two (upon scoring a TD) in the event the other team scores a TD and kicks the extra point. Otherwise, if the teams are tied after the first possession, the team getting the next possession can win by any score. Query: are there any coaches (Ok, maybe Dan Campbell) that would go for 2 if they scored a TD on their first possession?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Eh, I still claim football doesn't need specialized kickers and I'll die on that hill. I think it would be infinitely more entertaining to see the 320 pound DL-man that falls on a fumble in the end zone have to then kick the XP or the coach has to take a chance and run a play for two. Adds levels to the game.
I thought the OT rules were fine. However, I believe SF made a major blunder when they won the toss and elected to have the ball first.
