-OZ-
Footballguy
With both first year coaches too.Exactly. I've said this a couple of times regarding this. It's a total Prisoner's dilemma.
Staley isn’t going anywhere soon but Bissacia has to be thinking he’s auditioning.
With both first year coaches too.Exactly. I've said this a couple of times regarding this. It's a total Prisoner's dilemma.
Does NBC bring it up during the broadcast?
Yeah if I was playing there is no way I agree to a tie before hand. I'd want to knock out my rivalI hope they tie
i think you play to win the game, but if it comes down to the last minute of OT, why take a chance on a season ending turnover?
At that point, you start to turtle…
They already did not about agreeing to it but would you change your strategy
it certainly should be discussed.
If they play normal, better hope no big name players suffer a big injury. Just the idea of an extra week to heal and guarantee no big injuries make the tie option a good one
Any chance both teams got a call from the commissioners office about importance of not tying?
Because he prefers the Steelers to get in?Any chance both teams got a call from the commissioners office about importance of not tying?
No because the NFL set up a situation where the two teams playing tonight have an incentive to tie instead of winningBecause he prefers the Steelers to get in?
Going for two would be idiotic. Just tie and you're in. I don't get why this would even be a decision?Here's what I would love to see: Chargers are down 24-17 late; Herbert toss to Keenan Allen for a TD with 15 seconds left ...
... does Staley kick the XP or does he pull a Harbaugh and go for two?
I was mostly joking (hence the emoji). But no, you wouldn’t automatically be in, because it would send the game to OT, where you could still loseGoing for two would be idiotic. Just tie and you're in. I don't get why this would even be a decision?
While true, you at least are still alive to get in. Still wouldn't be a tough decision.I was mostly joking (hence the emoji). But no, you wouldn’t automatically be in, because it would send the game to OT, where you could still lose
Going to OT gives a better chance to win or tieWhile true, you at least are still alive to get in. Still wouldn't be a tough decision.
That's true. Normally the base-case scenario is that it's a wash: your odds of converting a two-pointer and your odds of winning a game in OT are both around 50%. But if a tie is as good as a win, that nudges the odds in favor of kicking the XP.Going to OT gives a better chance to win or tie
OMGHere's what I would love to see: Chargers are down 24-17 late; Herbert toss to Keenan Allen for a TD with 15 seconds left ...
... does Staley kick the XP or does he pull a Harbaugh and go for two?
Is anyone going to mention that the chargers-raiders game was originally scheduled to be in the "late" game timeframe? Whether it was flexed or not, they would have known the Colts lost the 1pm game.Hopefully the NFL kind of learned its lesson, but probably not.....while it was entertaining game and the tie potential added some drama.....it still doesn’t mean it was the right decision to flex the game and they were two seconds or a missed FG away from having it blow up in their face......the two teams should not have been in a position to know a tie could benefit them both....the Raiders were going to run out the clock and not risk anything until LAC called the timeout.....it really wasn’t fair...and had it ended in an “intentional” tie.....the Steelers would have had every right to be pissed.....
kind of the point of the thread is that the NFL should have played all the games that had an impact on each other at the same time....they have no problem moving games around....Is anyone going to mention that the chargers-raiders game was originally scheduled to be in the "late" game timeframe? Whether it was flexed or not, they would have known the Colts lost the 1pm game.
This can’t be the first year this has happened. I don’t ever recall the NFL moving games to prevent later teams from knowing the outcomes. Surely this can’t be the first time it’s came down to the final week.kind of the point of the thread is that the NFL should have played all the games that had an impact on each other at the same time....they have no problem moving games around....
For the last decade the rule has been that any Week 17/18 game can be flexed to any time slot, with a priority placed on highlighting the games with the most at stake and not giving any team a competitive advantage. What was unusual this year was a) there were no two teams facing off against each other for a division title and b) Chargers-Raiders were competing for a wildcard that was mostly, but not completely, self-contained.This can’t be the first year this has happened. I don’t ever recall the NFL moving games to prevent later teams from knowing the outcomes. Surely this can’t be the first time it’s came down to the final week.
had the Raiders run out the clock....which they were going to do before the timeout by LAC.....they and the Chargers would have received this "competitive advantage" at the expense of the Steelers.....that is why the game should have NEVER been flexed...the only movement the NFL should have done was to make sure the PIT/INDY/LVR were all played at the same time....not sure if the NFL "won" or just got really, really, really, freaking lucky Staley called a timeout....the narrative (led by Steeler Nation) would be completely different if LVR had just run out the clock and not attempted a FG like they were going too....For the last decade the rule has been that any Week 17/18 game can be flexed to any time slot, with a priority placed on highlighting the games with the most at stake and not giving any team a competitive advantage. What was unusual this year was a) there were no two teams facing off against each other for a division title and b) Chargers-Raiders were competing for a wildcard that was mostly, but not completely, self-contained.
Last year the NFL gambled by scheduling WFT-Eagles in SNF and lost when Philly threw in the towel halfway through. This year they gambled and won. A few years ago they didn't schedule any SNF game in the final week.
In theory, switching to a 17-week season should make the league's job harder going forward, because with every added game it becomes marginally more likely that playoff scenarios will be settled in advance of the final week
OK, first of all, Staley's timeout didn't affect the outcome, but there's a whole other thread for that debate ...had the Raiders run out the clock....which they were going to do before the timeout by LAC.....they and the Chargers wOKould have received this "competitive advantage" at the expense of the Steelers.....that is why the game should have NEVER been flexed...the only movement the NFL should have done was to make sure the PIT/INDY/LVR were all played at the same time....not sure if the NFL "won" or just got really, really, really, freaking lucky Staley called a timeout....the narrative (led by Steeler Nation) would be completely different if LVR had just run out the clock and not attempted a FG like they were going too....