An onside kick in playoff OT

[K-9]

54 minutes ago, ChevyVanMiller said:

To quote Danny Crossman when he was asked if he wished he’d kicked it through the end zone after home run throwback: “I pretty much wish we’d done anything other than what we did.” 

That’s the beauty of hindsight decisions; they’re never wrong.

[MPT]

2 minutes ago, Never NEVER Give-up said:

 

 

That was 2020. They changed the rules in 2021 and the rate went way up.

[mannc]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

If you lose the coin toss, you’re probably going to lose the game.

 

If you lose the onside kick attempt, you’re definitely going to lose the game.

 

I’ll take “probably” over “definitely”.

How about, “if you recover the onside kick you’re probably going to win the game”? How does that factor into your thinking, Mr. Einstein?

Edited January 25, 2022 by mannc

[transient]

47 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Ok. Let's look at it objectively.  Doing it the way you were suggesting might lead to success what kind of percent of the time? .5%? 1%? Debatable, however I think we could agree it's shockingly low odds.

 

Kicking it deep could lead to a TON more opportunity to make a play.

 

1. Kick could have been muffed/fumbled

2. Holding on the return sets the up deep

3. Being deeper into their territory (in theory) should lead to more plays having to be run.

4. Each play is the chance of a sack, fumble, tipped ball INT, dropped pass or throw away. 

 

So let's say you put all your eggs in the onside kick basket. You're basically giving yourself 1 shot at 1 good possible outcome.

 

Kicking it deep gives your (again, in theory) a shot on each individual play at one of several outcomes that could seal the game in your favor.

 

I look at it like this. Let's say we were playing darts. You need 20 to win. Would your rather have 1 dart from 20 feet away or 8 darts from 25 feet away? 

I think if you take a Bayesian approach to that decision, using the outcome of the 4th Q to inform the decision in OT, you would realize your "give yourself more chances" approach didn't have the same odds in game as it would in theory based on the way your defense was playing. It's like deciding to throw 8 darts from 25 feet and hoping for success when you know you've been holding the dart backwards for the last 15 minutes but there is nothing in your power that you can do to change it versus being given the chance to turn the dart around and throw it once from 20 feet.

[BuffaloBillyG]

8 minutes ago, transient said:

I think if you take a Bayesian approach to that decision, using the outcome of the 4th Q to inform the decision in OT, you would realize your "give yourself more chances" approach didn't have the same odds in game as it would in theory based on the way your defense was playing. It's like deciding to throw 8 darts from 25 feet and hoping for success when you know you've been holding the dart backwards for the last 15 minutes but there is nothing in your power that you can do to change it versus being given the chance to turn the dart around and throw it once from 20 feet.

Well, the only difference in that train of thought is this. With football being a game rooted in human performance you give yourself many more chances at forcing human error. A ball thrown a tad too far. A guy slips. Someone bats a ball. Luck has a lot to do with the outcome of games like this as well. Every play has the potential of human error playing a role. 

 

Maybe if you made those darts double sided where one side was sharp and would stick and the other was flat and would bounce off the board...but you wouldn't know if you had the correct side until after it's thrown would be a stronger anaolgy for me. And that 1 dart 20 foot throw would be more likely a 1 dart 200 foot throw. 

 

But I think we see the same issue. Both incredible long shots.

[billsfan89]

6 hours ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

I'd just rather see both offenses get to have a chance 

 

In that scenario both offenses get a chance. One has the opportunity to score first the other has a chance to answer with a TD and win with a two point conversion.

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, NJKBillsfan said:

It's honestly not that bad of an idea.

 

Worst case scenario they recover and get the ball from around the 50.

 

 

 

Considering that a surprise onside kick has a better recovery rate than a "standard" one it isn't a bad idea. It makes it an even better idea for a defense like the Bills that was mostly hoping to stop them in the redzone as opposed to a full field defense at that point. If you are giving up chunk yards in your opponents territory giving them the ball at the 45ish yard line isn't that much of a deal breaker. 

[Beast]

This is the kind of decision that fans that don't have their job on the line have no problem making hindsight.

[mannc]

6 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:

Speaking as a high school coach, the time to onside was after we scored to go up 4. They'd never expect it. Yeah you give them a short field, but a field goal doesn't win the game. They had to score a touchdown there regardless and they scored it in like two seconds anyway. If you recover the ball, you gain a possession there and likely ice the game, or at the very least, force them to use timeouts. 

 

But, the onside kick rules make them so improbable to recover that I would not do it. 

Actually, the odds of recovering an onside kick when the other team is not expecting it are pretty high, even under the new rules.

[Buffalo Junction]

Out of curiosity, if a team recovers an onside kick to start overtime, could they have a walkoff win with a field goal since the opposing team had “the opportunity to possess” the ball?

[Patrick Duffy]

Just now, Buffalo Junction said:

Out of curiosity, if a team recovers an onside kick to start overtime, could they have a walkoff win with a field goal since the opposing team had “the opportunity to possess” the ball?

Interesting question....Not sure if it would count as actual "possession" if opposing team doesn't touch the ball though? Something to look up.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

9 hours ago, Livinginthepast said:

Yes, I know what you are thinking, this is the stupidest, most preposterous idea ever proposed and a waste of a post, but I did seriously think about this after we lost the coin toss on Sunday night to start the OT. We had just blown the game, the Bills defense was utterly gassed and more importantly mentally defeated. Kicking off to them and giving them the ball was going to inevitably result in what we had just seen in their last two drives ( a quick drive and mostly likely a TD score). I had no faith that the Bills could stop Mahomes and my worst fears came true when it ended soon after. I wish that McD had somehow summoned up all his courage and gone for Bass to do an onside kick. There is no way that the Chiefs would have expected it in that pressure situation and their special teams would have been backing up to set up a return.  The chances of recovery would have been much higher than your average onside kick. And if it failed? and KC got the ball on their own 40 or 50? Well you were probably going to lose anyway and you may just have sped up the inevitable. Or maybe your defense pulls off some unlikely miracle and intercepts Mahomes or they fumble.   Sean Payton did the onside kick at the start of the 2nd half in the Saints SB win over the Colts and it swung the game. Probably the ballsiest coaching move in SB history. But this?? This would be the ballsiest call of all time. Of course I very much doubt that anyone on the Bills staff even considered this possible avenue or would have had the bravery/ derring do to try it. But when I look at how the game ended in OT why not gamble? Especially with these OT rules?

Not a terrible idea they way things are were going. If you get the element of surprise and recover I do you also win with a field goal? 

[Buffalo Junction]

Just now, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

Interesting question....Not sure if it would count as actual "possession" if opposing team doesn't touch the ball though? Something to look up.

I quoted a section of the league’s overtime rule, but I have no clue if that would count as an “opportunity to possess” or not. There’s certainly a possibility that the refs might not know on the spot either. 

[Gonzonzo]

One question.

If you kick an onside kick and get the ball back....Do you win the game by scoring a field goal or does the other team have  one possession to win/tie?

[Patrick Duffy]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

I quoted a section of the league’s overtime rule, but I have no clue if that would count as an “opportunity to possess” or not. There’s certainly a possibility that the refs might not know on the spot either. 

Yeah, I don't know how that would play out, but if I was to guess, I'd guess they would have to actually have possession on offense. 

[Livinginthepast]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

Out of curiosity, if a team recovers an onside kick to start overtime, could they have a walkoff win with a field goal since the opposing team had “the opportunity to possess” the ball?

I think they would have to score a TD under the current rules to end the game. If the Bills had recovered an onside kick then technically the other team would not have possessed it yet. So a FG isnt enough to get it done.

[without a drought]

10 hours ago, Einstein said:

If you lose the coin toss, you’re probably going to lose the game.

 

If you lose the onside kick attempt, you’re definitely going to lose the game.

 

I’ll take “probably” over “definitely”.

Except the definitely is not definite.

[Buffalo Junction]

1 hour ago, Livinginthepast said:

I think they would have to score a TD under the current rules to end the game. If the Bills had recovered an onside kick then technically the other team would not have possessed it yet. So a FG isnt enough to get it done.

“Opportunity to possess”…. Which is where my curiosity stems from. A kickoff that enters the field of play as a live ball should probably considered an opportunity to possess said live ball. 

 

 

[1ManRaid]

12 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

The reality is that win probability on an onside kick in that situation would have to be WAY LESS than simply kicking off in a normal fashion.

I don't have the exact numbers on that, but that would be my guess.

 

The plan might "sound" convincing to you, but it would be unbelievably risky and likely to fail.

 

 

 

Considering the team that wins the OT coin flip in the playoffs has won 91% of the time, a surprise onside kick (which has a higher success rate) actually has a higher winning chance, assuming you can score in some fashion.

[Turk71]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

If you lose the coin toss, you’re probably going to lose the game.

 

If you lose the onside kick attempt, you’re definitely going to lose the game.

 

I’ll take “probably” over “definitely”.

Why? They still have to score a TD either way. It's a little easier to go 50 yards than 75 yards but that's the only difference. Neither is definite, one is more probable.

You're no Einstein, quit kidding yourself.