What would you do with the new OT rule? Defer or take the ball?

[Patrick Duffy]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I think with the analytics that adjust win percentage based on individual plays - 70-80% of coaches or more will be going for 2 as the 2nd team - knowing that both teams just scored on their drives and the other team can win with just a FG.

 

We already see teams near the end of games go for two rather than 1 to win outright rather than tie and go to OT.

 

We also see teams like the Bills go for 4th down TDs rather than tie the game with a FG.

 

Analytics would drive coaches in the 2nd spot to go for the win and try to win with your offense in a 1 play scenario.

 

The real question is what does the 1st team do if they score?  How many have the guts to go for 2 to ensure they have life and how many just settle for the XP.

 

 

I don't think they would. Far from it actually, also not sure why you're stating these percentages as a fact. I mean we don't know since obviously it's a new rule. Some will probably go for 2 when a situation presents itself. I just think the percentage of kicking XP will be higher than going for 2.

[Milanos Milano]

2 minutes ago, Dablitzkrieg said:

We have Josh.  Score

 

? Are you saying take the ball first and score? Or are you saying defer and let Allen score and go for 2? 

[Tanoros]

8 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I think with the analytics that adjust win percentage based on individual plays - 70-80% of coaches or more will be going for 2 as the 2nd team - knowing that both teams just scored on their drives and the other team can win with just a FG.

 

We already see teams near the end of games go for two rather than 1 to win outright rather than tie and go to OT.

 

We also see teams like the Bills go for 4th down TDs rather than tie the game with a FG.

 

Analytics would drive coaches in the 2nd spot to go for the win and try to win with your offense in a 1 play scenario.

 

The real question is what does the 1st team do if they score?  How many have the guts to go for 2 to ensure they have life and how many just settle for the XP.

 

 

Your question at the end is a good one, but I’m sure 90%+ go for xp when scoring a td as the first team. Because at that point, your defending the field from a td, and then a 2pt play should they get the td. Lots of opportunities for the defense there, the team would have to have zero confidence in their D, or the other teams qb just playing at an unstoppable level (which is why I said 90%, it could happen, we saw Allen and Mahomes do just that). 
 

As far as the second team, I agree 100%. Going for two would make sense in many cases, especially considering both teams just scored td’s on their first OT possession. When having a qb like Allen, it makes even more sense to go for 2 as the second team. Allen is so deadly in the redzone. 
 

 

[Milanos Milano]

5 minutes ago, NewEra said:

If both teams score and kick XPs, the team that got the ball first only needs a FG to win.  The nfl has changed dramatically over the years to benefit offense.  Smart teams will plan on using all 4 downs for that possession (imo) and in most cases will inevitably be in position a FG attempt (the majority of the time).  I’d rather go for the win and not allow them that opportunity.  I think it’s easier to convert a 2 yard play than to keep a team out of FG range. Keep in mind, the team your playing is in the playoffs and has a good qb.  

I think it depends on the match up to some extent. If you are playing against Mahomes, I don’t see how you don’t go for 2 points in the event of a TD-TD. Full knowing that all Mahomes needs is a few yards to get into FG range. If you are playing against Burrows, I think we kick the xtra point and take the higher percentage play and send the defense back on the field, especially considering we have Miller and White coming back. 

[Albany,n.y.]

Question:  How many coaches who defer in the 1st half, also defer in the 2nd half?  Answer: NONE!  You don't defer unless you have the option of getting the 1st possession later in the game.  

Logic says choose the option that has the possibility of more possessions.  If you both score and the game is tied the team that took the ball can win the game with the team that deferred not having another possession.  Give me the possibility of a 2-1 possession advantage in overtime every game.   

[Patrick Duffy]

4 minutes ago, NewEra said:

If both teams score and kick XPs, the team that got the ball first only needs a FG to win.  The nfl has changed dramatically over the years to benefit offense.  Smart teams will plan on using all 4 downs for that possession (imo) and in most cases will inevitably be in position a FG attempt (the majority of the time).  I’d rather go for the win and not allow them that opportunity.  I think it’s easier to convert a 2 yard play than to keep a team out of FG range. Keep in mind, the team your playing is in the playoffs and has a good qb.  

Correct, one of the reasons I would take ball if winning coin flip in OT. I don't see many teams stopping Josh and Bills offense from getting into FG range. Also with a K like Bass gives an advantage for sure.

[Milanos Milano]

Plus like others said, if you defer, you get to play with 4 down territory the whole drive. That is an advantage. 

Just now, Albany,n.y. said:

Question:  How many coaches who defer in the 1st half, also defer in the 2nd half?  Answer: NONE!  You don't defer unless you have the option of getting the 1st possession later in the game.  

Logic says choose the option that has the possibility of more possessions.  If you both score and the game is tied the team that took the ball can win the game with the team that deferred not having another possession.  Give me the possibility of a 2-1 possession advantage in overtime every game.   

Normally I would agree with that, but the 2 pt conversion throws the wrench into this. Having 4 downs the whole drive is also anther wrench. I’m almost inclined to change my vote. Deferring seems to be the best option. Especially if you get a defensive stop and it’s not a TD-TD scenario. 

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

I think it depends on the match up to some extent. If you are playing against Mahomes, I don’t see how you don’t go for 2 points in the event of a TD-TD. Full knowing that all Mahomes needs is a few yards to get into FG range. If you are playing against Burrows, I think we kick the xtra point and take the higher percentage play and send the defense back on the field, especially considering we have Miller and White coming back. 

If I have josh allen, I got for two vs anyone.  Put the game in HIS hands 💯.  We couldn’t  keep the chiefs from getting in fg range for 13 secs…. 
 

 

[Rochesterfan]

8 minutes ago, Tanoros said:

By taking the ball, your setting the team up to have the ball first should OT move to sudden death. 
 

To be honest, there isn’t a one size fits all answer to this question, and both sides have merit. Having the ball second, and being able to use 4 downs is a nice advantage. However, getting the ball first in sudden death is also a nice advantage. 
 

The nice thing about going second is having the ability to go for two and avoid sudden death. I don’t think it would be common for the first team with the ball to go for two, so the second team has a shot to either win it or lose it on a 2pt play. I’d take that with Allen all day any day. 

 

This is 100% true if you assume the game goes to sudden death.  The problem is I think most teams would avoid sudden death.

 

The only times I see sudden death happening is:

1) 1st team doesn’t score and the second team doesn’t score either - rare, but could happen with 2 defensive teams or weather.

2) 1st team kicks a FG and the second team is stuck in a 4th and long and has to kick the FG.  (I believe many teams will go for it on 4th and short to try and win outright).

3) 1st team scores a TD and a 2 pt conversion - then the best the other team can do is tie.

 

I think in playoff football - a third possession would be rare, but then you are right and getting the ball 3rd would be huge.  For me - I want the ball 2nd with all of the data to determine what I need to win and I’ll go from there.

 

 

[Milanos Milano]

I think the ultimate question is this. If you do win the coin toss and you do elect to have the 1st possession or you lose the coin toss and are forced to go first. If you score a TD, I think you must go for 2 points playing a team like KC. Otherwise you are giving KC a chance to score and go for 2 to beat you. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by IronMaidenBills

[Tanoros]

7 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

The only likely scenario where it goes to sudden death is if the first team kicks a FG and the other team is in a 4th and long situation and matches.

 

If the first team scores a TD, the second team- if they score- will certainly attempt the 2 vs. giving the ball back to the other team in a sudden death situation.

 

Knowledge is power and deferring is the obvious choice, outside of a weird weather situation where the wind direction is more important.  

You just made a point why there is an advantage to take the ball first. Having the ball first in a sudden death situation (regardless of how it got there) IS an advantage. 
 

There isn’t a right answer to this question. It depends entirely on the team composition, and the flow of the game. Consider a defensive struggle, with both teams having a hard time moving the ball. In that situation, having the bs first in a sudden death situation can make sense. Another factor in this specific scenario (defensive type game), is the first team with the ball could pin the second team near their own end zone. Setting the first team up with a short field in a sudden death situation. 
 

The point is, every game is it’s own game, and the right answer depends game to game, team to team. With our current team and Allen, I think I’d prefer having the ball second, only because I’d trust Allen to get the td and the 2 pt, especially being able to use 4 downs to move down the field/get the td. 

[Patrick Duffy]

8 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Fixed.  I don’t trust many defenses to stop great QBs from converting a 2 point conversion.  The league is geared towards offense

This is a situation I can certainly see a reason to defer. When a game is like BUF/KC was against Pat.M. Other than him I don't see another opponent that can go toe to toe like that against Bills offense.

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, Tanoros said:

You just made a point why there is an advantage to take the ball first. Having the ball first in a sudden death situation (regardless of how it got there) IS an advantage. 
 

There isn’t a right answer to this question. It depends entirely on the team composition, and the flow of the game. Consider a defensive struggle, with both teams having a hard time moving the ball. In that situation, having the bs first in a sudden death situation can make sense. Another factor in this specific scenario (defensive type game), is the first team with the ball could pin the second team near their own end zone. Setting the first team up with a short field in a sudden death situation. 
 

The point is, every game is it’s own game, and the right answer depends game to game, team to team. With our current team and Allen, I think I’d prefer having the ball second, only because I’d trust Allen to get the td and the 2 pt, especially being able to use 4 downs to move down the field/get the td. 

But it’s not an advantage if the other team scores a TD and elects to go for 2 to beat you. If you have the ball first, I think most teams are going to go for 2 full knowing that the responding team can have 4 downs the whole drive and score a 2 point to beat you so you don’t get that 3rd possession advantage. 

1 minute ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

This is a situation I can certainly see a reason to defer. When a game is like BUF/KC was against Pat.M. Other than him I don't see another opponent that can go toe to toe like that against Bills offense.

Agree, which is why I think it’s a case by case scenario. If I’m playing KC, I’m deferring. I’m likely deferring anyways because you get the extra down, and you get to see if the opponent goes for the XP or 2point, so you know 100% what you need to win. 

[Tanoros]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

This is 100% true if you assume the game goes to sudden death.  The problem is I think most teams would avoid sudden death.

 

The only times I see sudden death happening is:

1) 1st team doesn’t score and the second team doesn’t score either - rare, but could happen with 2 defensive teams or weather.

2) 1st team kicks a FG and the second team is stuck in a 4th and long and has to kick the FG.  (I believe many teams will go for it on 4th and short to try and win outright).

3) 1st team scores a TD and a 2 pt conversion - then the best the other team can do is tie.

 

I think in playoff football - a third possession would be rare, but then you are right and getting the ball 3rd would be huge.  For me - I want the ball 2nd with all of the data to determine what I need to win and I’ll go from there.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I believe your answering this question as a Bills fan, knowing we have Allen. Because we have Allen I agree with what your saying. My overall point was in regards to playoff OT in general and not necessarily our team and Allen. 
 

It really comes down to the type of game/game flow and team composition. Meaning, there isn’t one right answer for all situations/playoff OT’s. 

[Milanos Milano]

Having Allen though, do you just go balls to the wall, score 8 points and put the destiny in your hands for the 3rd possession? 

[NewEra]

1 minute ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Having Allen though, do you just go balls to the wall, score 8 points and put the destiny in your hands for the 3rd possession? 

I would. 

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, Tanoros said:

I could be wrong, but I believe your answering this question as a Bills fan, knowing we have Allen. Because we have Allen I agree with what your saying. My overall point was in regards to playoff OT in general and not necessarily our team and Allen. 
 

It really comes down to the type of game/game flow and team composition. Meaning, there isn’t one right answer for all situations/playoff OT’s. 

 

I agree, but I think it applies to a huge % of teams - not just the Bills.  Most teams want to control their own destiny and most teams feel they control things when they have the ball.

 

Therefore to me if I want to control my destiny - I want the ball second with everything on the line and I know exactly what I need to do to win this game.  Even if I am a defensive minded guy - I want the opportunity to stop them and know a FG wins.  
 

I want the pressure and the knowledge every time.

[Tanoros]

3 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

But it’s not an advantage if the other team scores a TD and elects to go for 2 to beat you. If you have the ball first, I think most teams are going to go for 2 full knowing that the responding team can have 4 downs the whole drive and score a 2 point to beat you so you don’t get that 3rd possession advantage. 

Agree, which is why I think it’s a case by case scenario. If I’m playing KC, I’m deferring. I’m likely deferring anyways because you get the extra down, and you get to see if the opponent goes for the XP or 2point, so you know 100% what you need to win. 

Your point is in regard to a very specific situation. What I’m saying is, a 3rd possession in sudden death is an advantage. There is no way to argue that it isn’t. A 3rd possession can come about in a few different ways, the how isn’t important, the fact that’s it’s possible is the important part. 
 

I also think your wrong about the first team going for two when scoring a td. I certainly can see it happening, but it would be the exception and not the rule. Only elite offenses or teams with elite qb’s would be so brazen as to go for two on the first possession td. 
 

I’d feel pretty good about the Bills having to stop a td/2pt for the win in just about every situation. Even that ***** Kansas playoff game, I’d be ok with a one play 2pt stop for our defense. I feel like, this is the way the vast majority of NFL coaches would view it as well. But only time will tell. 

[Milanos Milano]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I would. 

Or do you trust your defense to defer enough to where if they do stop them, you give your offense a huge advantage? Even if your defense doesn’t stop them, maybe they can at least be scary enough to stop the opponent from attempting a 2 point. Which will give Allen the chance to work with 4 downs and opt for a 2 point to win if he wants to play hero ball. It’s actually a tough conundrum. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by IronMaidenBills

[Patrick Duffy]

1 minute ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Having Allen though, do you just go balls to the wall, score 8 points and put the destiny in your hands for the 3rd possession? 

I think it would still depend on circumstances, but I do more times than not with Allen and this offense for sure