Skip to content

Under proposed overtime rule, Bucs would have been a playoff team

Getty Images

When the proposal to shorten regular season overtimes to 10 minutes comes up for a vote at the owner’s meetings next week, there’s a good chance the Buccaneers will support the measure.

Primarily, because they’d have ended a nine-year playoff drought if it had been in place last year.

As noted by Rick Stroud of the Tampa Bay Times, the Buccaneers would have qualified for the playoffs at 9-6-1 under the proposed timing, since they lost with a minute and 45 seconds left in overtime to the Raiders on Oct. 30.

And you can argue that one was a double loss, since they had to play the Falcons four days later on Thursday Night Football, and dropped a 43-28 decision.

The Bucs defense was on the field for 94 plays against the Raiders, making it no wonder they had little left in the tank the following Thursday when the Falcons pulled away in the second half.

The Buccaneers haven’t made the playoffs since 2007, and would have slid into the final Wild Card spot over the 9-7 Lions had that loss been a tie.

Permalink 20 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Detroit Lions, Home, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
20 Responses to “Under proposed overtime rule, Bucs would have been a playoff team”
  1. theandy59 says: Mar 24, 2017 8:48 AM

    You’re of course assuming that everything would have played out the same if both coaches knew the OT period was only 10 minutes, specious at best.

  2. whatjusthapped says: Mar 24, 2017 8:52 AM

    If and buts, if my aunt had nuts, she would be my uncle.

  3. nflfan4now says: Mar 24, 2017 8:57 AM

    Unless of course with the clock running down the Raiders game plan the Raiders changed their game plan, like trying a long field goal or something…..

  4. Della Street says: Mar 24, 2017 9:08 AM

    That’s a stretch.

  5. Stiller43 says: Mar 24, 2017 9:14 AM

    And if games we’re only 60 seconds long, only 3 games all year long would have had a winner!

    DUMB analysis. You can’t change the game circumstances (timing) and pretend ALL their actions would have remained the exact same.

  6. jonathankrobinson424 says: Mar 24, 2017 9:14 AM

    Would-a, could-a , should-a. I’m a BUCS fan and I want to see them DOMINATE ALL season and get into the playoffs. Sorta like what the Atlanta Falcons did.

  7. twinfan24 says: Mar 24, 2017 9:20 AM

    You cannot make that assumption. If OT was only 10 minutes, the teams would have approached the game differently and it may or may not have had the same outcome. That’s like saying if a game lasted 61 minutes instead of 60, every team that runs out of time at the end of a game would have won the game.

    As far as trying to somehow then latch their Thursday night loss, to a superior team, on to this game, is ludicrous. Are you implying if they had beaten the Raiders that would have propelled them to a win over the Falcons?

  8. twinfan24 says: Mar 24, 2017 9:21 AM

    whatjusthapped says:
    Mar 24, 2017 8:52 AM

    If and buts, if my aunt had nuts, she would be my uncle.
    That statement may not be as true as it used to be…..

  9. anotherfavrepick says: Mar 24, 2017 9:34 AM

    To be honest, I would say over half of Lions fans wouldn’t have minded if the Bucs took their spot. There was a big push here to get Caldwell fired, most believed missing the playoffs would’ve been that push. I thought not being able to score a touchdown for 4 weeks would’ve been enough but I guess not.

  10. bondlake says: Mar 24, 2017 9:40 AM

    Yeah – and if the dog hadn’t stopped to piss, he’d have caught the rabbit.

  11. rhamrhoddy says: Mar 24, 2017 9:45 AM

    I understand why some of the articles on this site try to figure out what if and what may happen and so forth but I don’t think anyone expects Tampa Bay to vote on this particular change one way or the other based on an OT game they lost last year.

    The comment section is full of reasons why.

  12. patsrule59 says: Mar 24, 2017 9:50 AM

    If this had happened to the Colts they’d be hanging a banner for it.

  13. rjov says: Mar 24, 2017 10:00 AM

    Sweet, so does that mean the Raiders didn’t win the wild card with that loss? I’ll take it that means the Broncos went to the playoffs and should have won the Superbowl. Right!

  14. bobthebillsfan says: Mar 24, 2017 10:17 AM

    bondlake says:
    Mar 24, 2017 9:40 AM
    Yeah – and if the dog hadn’t stopped to piss, he’d have caught the rabbit.
    I’ve always heard it said this way:
    If the dog hadn’t stopped to take a crap he would have caught the rabbit.

    The converse of that is if the dog hadn’t have caught the rabbit he wouldn’t have to take a crap.

  15. meximyke says: Mar 24, 2017 10:24 AM

    Under proposed overtime rule, Bucs would have been a playoff team.
    Who fricking cares? If my team won all their games, they would of won the super bowl!

  16. joetoronto says: Mar 24, 2017 11:33 AM

    Unbelievable, I can’t believe you posted that. Actually, I can, carry on.

  17. radrntn says: Mar 24, 2017 11:42 AM

    would of , could of, should of, but the bottom line is you didn’t.

  18. osiris33 (bandwagon since 1976) says: Mar 24, 2017 12:12 PM

    I’ve got a better idea. End the stupid “inactives” list and suit 53 players on game day so guys can rotate and play an extra quarter if they have to. Allow either unlimited transfers from the practice squad so you can always suit 53 or just go to 60-man rosters. Too many games have been effected because of the stupid inactives rule. It was always idiocy.

    A Jeff Fisher special.

  19. southpaw79 says: Mar 24, 2017 12:28 PM

    And if the games ended after the first quarter, the Niners might have made the playoffs…. your point?

  20. ROSMITH51 says: Mar 24, 2017 4:07 PM

    Even if the teams wouldn’t have changed strategy and everything played out the same right up until the 10-minute mark…

    Right at the 10 minute mark, Oakland was at the Tampa 43 yard line…

    Pretty sure they’d have given Seabass a shot to kick a 60-yard FG rather than have the game end in a tie.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!