PALM BEACH, Fla. — It was deep into the NFL Honors show last month, an annual Super Bowl week extravaganza, and host Keegan-Michael Key was sitting in the crowd raving about the energy and entertainment value of the night.
“This,” Key said, “is so much fun. A show like this, you just want it to go on and on and on and on and on. Am I right?”
Then the camera zoomed out. To Key’s right was a smirking Josh Allen.
“Or,” the Buffalo Bills quarterback said, “you just end it in a way that makes sense, is fair and gives everyone an equal opportunity to win.”
Touché.
Credit Allen for having a sense of humor, for taking an easy comedic poke at one of the more heartbreaking sequences of his football career. Perhaps, had the NFL’s overtime rules been different, Allen would not have been in the crowd that night, instead preparing to lead the Bills to the Super Bowl for the first time in 29 seasons.
Alas, in the defining moment of the Bills season, Allen was left in a similar capacity as he was 11 days later at that Honors show. Just a spectator.
The Bills defense couldn’t stop the Kansas City Chiefs on the first possession of overtime in the AFC divisional round. Buffalo lost 42-36. Their star quarterback, who was electric in throwing for 329 yards and four touchdowns, didn’t touch the ball in overtime.
The game-ending play was an 8-yard sudden death touchdown pass from Patrick Mahomes to Travis Kelce. But for all intents and purposes, the Chiefs’ game-winning moment may have come when Allen called “tails” on the overtime coin flip. Referee John Hussey’s coin landed with the heads side up, and the Chiefs had their opening to keep Allen and the Bills’ red-hot offense off the field.
Eight plays, 75 yards, touchdown. Game over.
If ever an adrenalizing game-winning sequence in a classic playoff game also qualified as a buzzkill, that was it.
In the two months since, the NFL’s current overtime rule has been hotly debated, prompting serious discussions about potential changes at this week’s league meetings at The Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla. Those conversations intensified behind closed doors Monday and figure to carry into Tuesday before a potential vote is taken. A door could open for a change that would guarantee both teams at least one possession in overtime.
The Indianapolis Colts and Philadelphia Eagles submitted a rules proposal to give both teams a chance to possess the football in overtime regardless of what happens on the opening drive. In other words, there would no longer be a sudden-death touchdown opportunity on the first series.
The Tennessee Titans, meanwhile, submitted a slightly tweaked pitch that has the same intent — unless the team that has the ball first in overtime scores a touchdown and also converts their two-point attempt. Under that proposal, a game could still end in a sudden-death fashion on the first possession.
For either proposal to pass, at least 24 teams need to vote in favor of change. Traditionally, that has been a high bar to clear for many rules proposals in their first year.
“There’s a lot of momentum to have a change,” said Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, who is also the chairman of the NFL’s competition committee. “But let’s see what happens.”
One popular suggestion has been to stick with the status quo for the regular season but apply the proposed overtime rules changes to the playoffs. That is drawing serious consideration at the meetings.
McKay has made it known that he’s, at the very least, in favor of this week’s spirited conversation, emphasizing 10 of the last 12 overtime playoff games were won by the team that wins the coin flip, with seven of those contests decided on the first possession.
Said McKay: “I do think the statistics absolutely warrant an examination of whether our overtime rules need to be further modified.”
New Chicago Bears general manager Ryan Poles thinks he has a good read on why those numbers are so skewed.
“It’s because of the quarterbacks,” he said. “When you get to that point in the playoffs, a lot of those quarterbacks are on a high level and fully capable of just going down and winning you a game.”
Poles has been on both sides of the coin, so to speak. Two months ago, as the Chiefs executive director of player personnel, Poles was inside Arrowhead Stadium when the Chiefs rallied to tie the game with a 13-second field goal drive at the end of regulation before winning in overtime.
In that moment, with the Kansas City crowd going bonkers, Poles was certain the current overtime format was fair and just.
“That worked out,” he said with a smile Monday. “Good by me.”
But three years earlier, Poles was singing a far different tune when the Chiefs lost a 37-31 overtime heartbreaker in the AFC Championship. In that loss, Tom Brady and the New England Patriots won the coin flip and also marched 75 yards for the game-winning touchdown.
Mahomes, that season’s MVP, never got his chance to answer.
“You’re mad,” Poles said. “It hurts. You feel like you got cheated.”
Poles grinned, understanding the conundrum.
“Obviously,” he said, “my thoughts on this have changed over time. And I reserve the right to change them again.”
For whatever it’s worth, that Patriots victory in the AFC title game in January 2019 came two years after they beat the Falcons 34-28 in overtime of Super Bowl LI. Once again, the Patriots won the coin flip and Brady guided them to a touchdown. Once again, that season’s MVP, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan, never touched the ball in overtime.
The buzz circulating through the league meetings Monday was that an overtime rules change may still be a bit of a long shot, in part because the suggestions have been many and varied. Some wonder with legitimate reason whether a move to grant each team a possession in overtime would spark similar arguments later if teams that win the coin toss eventually score — and win — on their second OT possession without the opponent getting a chance to answer. What then?
“Are we always making sure that both teams get the same opportunity?” Poles said. “Those are the kinds of discussions that are being had. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.”
In some pockets, a collection of coaches and league executives favor leaving things alone. Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin, for instance, is content with the status quo. Tomlin, who is on the league’s competition committee, labels himself “a traditionalist” and “a sudden death advocate.”
Leave things be, he says.
“I don’t fear sudden death,” Tomlin said. “And I never have. … I just think (over) 60 minutes (of regulation) everybody has had a fair opportunity to win the game. When you’re talking about changes as it pertains to competitive fairness, I speak to the first 60 minutes that we all had. So win the game.”
Still, Tomlin understands the other side of this argument too.
“I certainly sense there’s a desire to do something,” he said. “Whether or not we can land the plane remains to be seen.”
In the case of January’s highly-scrutinized Chiefs-Bills finish, many have stressed that all the Bills needed to do in overtime to put the ball back in Allen’s hands was make a defensive stop. They failed to do so and therefore reaped what they sowed.
After all, a week later in the AFC Championship against the Cincinnati Bengals, the Chiefs again went to overtime and again won the coin toss. But the Bengals intercepted Mahomes on the opening drive and turned that takeaway into a game-winning field goal drive — and a Super Bowl trip.
That has only added fuel to the argument of traditionalists, who favor keeping things just as they are.
The pushback to that way of thinking, however, is basic, arguing that in the AFC divisional round, the Chiefs’ shaky defense — which allowed a pair of go-ahead 75-yard touchdown drives on the Bills’ final two series — never had to pass the same test the Bills’ defense failed. And they didn’t have to pass that test in large part because the Chiefs won the coin toss.
By extension, Allen, one of the league’s most exciting quarterbacks, didn’t get an opportunity to continue his hot streak, didn’t get to extend a truly entertaining playoff show and was ultimately left delivering a sardonic jibe from the seats of the NFL Honors show.
Maybe in the future, perhaps as soon as next postseason, such controversial moments will be in the rearview mirror. Maybe the league will move Tuesday to enact change and to provide teams equal opportunity to score on their first drive of overtime.
Then again, maybe not.
With as many times as Poles has gone back and forth, he sees himself still favoring the current system. But he acknowledged Monday he’s close to 50-50 on the matter and wouldn’t object to whatever is decided.
“I go back to how this conversation is impacted by quarterback play,” Poles said. “That’s why I understand why there might be a lean toward both teams having possessions. Ultimately, I think that’s what everyone wants to see. From a fan’s vantage point, from an entertainment standpoint, that’s what people want. It’s like, ‘Hey, I want my guy to have the ball.’”
