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

[GunnerBill]

Just now, IronMaidenBills said:

Not true if the team who scores first elects to go for 2 and succeeds. That guarantees them the 3rd possession advantage. 

 

It does. But it doesn't win them the game on that possession. Team two has the chance to win it on their first possession. Team one has no chance to do that.

[Milanos Milano]

Just now, FilthyBeast said:

There are two schools of though on this, if your QB/offense is hot you probably want them to get the ball first in overtime.

 

However now that each team is ensured at least one possession I would lean on deferring every time since you still have a chance to stop the other team first and then can just win with a FG instead of TD on your next possession.

And you get 4 downs the whole drive. Deferring offers a lot of benefits. Going first is only a benefit if you elect to go for 2 and go up 8 points. 

[Billsrhody]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The team who possess first in OT can't win the game on that possession whatever they do. They can score a TD and 2 points and still the other team get the ball. The second team can win the game in all scenarios except for those where team 1 scores 8.

Team 1 controls it's own destiny. Team 2 does not. 

 

Optimal strategy would be to get the ball first, try to score a touchdown and 2 point conversion. Which is the exact same goal as team 2. The only difference is that Team 1 would get the 3rd possession. 

[Patrick Duffy]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I am not stating it as fact - it Is what I believe that playoff coaches will decide when the game is on the line and I think the numbers grow every year as teams do more and more analytical work showing how your win percentage alters based on 1 play.

 

If you are the second team in a playoff game and the first team went down scored a TD and kicked the XP and you just matched that and scored a TD - why on earth would any coach just kick to XP in that situation and let it go to sudden death with the other team getting the ball?

 

A 2 point conversion is just below 50% for every team, but tends to run slightly higher than 50% for playoff teams.  Therefore, going for 2 would give you better odds of winning outright over losing outright.  
 

I believe coaches can justify that decision, but will be rightly questioned if they just kick the XP and let the other team have the ball with a shot to win.

 

Regular season might be different, but playoffs - I can’t see a coach not going for the win, but I am sure there is one old school coach that would play for the tie.

 

 

 

 

I guess you didn't intend to, but below you said in bold, "70-80% will go for 2 as 2nd team-knowing that"....

 

I'm sure some will at times, but I don't think any where close to that number. I think more times than not they will try XP

 

48 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.

 

 

 

[Dafan]

1 hour ago, SWATeam said:

There's very little benefit in taking the ball.  If you defer you know exactly what you need to win.

Problem with deferring is that if they score....you score...then they get to get first possession in sudden death.  A FG land you're done.

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It does. But it doesn't win them the game on that possession. Team two has the chance to win it on their first possession. Team one has no chance to do that.

Right, but it depends on how aggressive you want to be. Allen can simply go, listen up team, I’m going down there and we are going to score 6 and I’m going to play hero ball and get us 2 more. Then there is nothing that can stop Allen’s destiny other than him messing up. 

[Rochesterfan]

14 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

 

I have a feeling this OT rule is going to bring about a whole bunch of aggressiveness and interesting decisions. Hopefully it works it’s way down into the regular season, because I feel like the fact that the board can’t agree 100% let alone 80%  on what to do, some teams are going to play around with it and make it entertaining. 

And go for XP or for 2pt? If we are going to take the ball first, there would be no point unless we go for 2 and put up 8 points. Otherwise there is no guarantee Allen gets that 3rd possession advantage. 

 

These decisions have been coming more and more already.

 

Baltimore lost 2 games trying for 2 to avoid OT.

 

The Bills went for the TD and the win in Tennessee.

 

The Chargers, the Colts, and the Eagles have all been going for more 4th downs at different and unique places on the field.

 

Pittsburgh has been going for 2 points early in many games trying to get an advantage.

 

The analytics are pushing more 2 point attempts and more 4th down attempts every year.

 

This change is going to push that further I would expect as it will add more data points to the pool.

 

 

[NewEra]

15 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

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. 

I don’t trust too many defenses to stop many offenses with the game on the line in 2022.  New NFL rules + terrible officiating +   the evolution of mobile QBs + increased chance that go for it on 4th = advantage offense.  Statistically, we had the best defense in the league last year.  To me, that shows how very few good/great defenses there are in the league.  

[Milanos Milano]

I think it’s a case by case scenario. Deferring does offer up a lot of advantages now. Especially if you have a respectable defense like we do now. Miller and having White back gives us immense odds on these kinds of strategic scenarios. 

[Rochesterfan]

8 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Not true if the team who scores first elects to go for 2 and succeeds. That guarantees them the 3rd possession advantage. 

They still can’t win on that first possession.  If they score and succeed at 2 - the other team can still tie.  Then the sudden death occurs.

 

There is absolutely no way the team that has the ball first can win on that first possession.  The other team will always get the ball.  The second team that has the ball is the only one that can outright win, outright lose, or force another tie on their possession.

 

After that it is sudden death and the advantage typically goes to the first team with the ball.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Billsrhody said:

Team 1 controls it's own destiny. Team 2 does not. 

 

Optimal strategy would be to get the ball first, try to score a touchdown and 2 point conversion. Which is the exact same goal as team 2. The only difference is that Team 1 would get the 3rd possession. 

 

No they don't. Completely wrong.

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

I don’t trust too many defenses to stop many offenses with the game on the line in 2022.  New NFL rules + terrible officiating +   the evolution of mobile QBs + increased chance that go for it on 4th = advantage offense.  Statistically, we had the best defense in the league last year.  To me, that shows how very few good/great defenses there are in the league.  

I think our team is unique. This rule is going to be a case by case for many teams. Deferring offers a lot of benefits that fits our team’s identity. I think the only team out there that may cause us to change strategy would be KC. Otherwise I think it is wise to defer. We beat KC with White, and now we have Miller and another year of experience for Rousseau and Oliver. 

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

They still can’t win on that first possession.  If they score and succeed at 2 - the other team can still tie.  Then the sudden death occurs.

 

There is absolutely no way the team that has the ball first can win on that first possession.  The other team will always get the ball.  The second team that has the ball is the only one that can outright win, outright lose, or force another tie on their possession.

 

After that it is sudden death and the advantage typically goes to the first team with the ball.

 

 

 

 

I agree. But like I said, it depends on how aggressive the team wants to be. If the team truly wants to control their destiny, they will want the 1st possession because of the sudden death advantage. But this is only an advantage if the team elects to go for 2 points. 

[Tanoros]

12 minutes ago, Billsrhody said:

 

+1 to this

 

For all the folks referencing the "advantage" of going second and being able to go for it on 4th down and go for the 2 point conversions. How is that an advantage is the team that goes first can do those things as well (and probably should)? 

The team that gets the ball first can go for 4th downs sure, but they also run the risk of giving the second team great field position only needing a fg to win. The second team doesn’t have this worry, because they lose unless they score anyway.
 

With that being said, the first team would only very strategically go for 4th downs, but I doubt they go into a new set of downs with a 4 a down mentality, where as the second team is thinking this way about every set of downs. They are all 4 down territory. That’s the advantage others are speaking of. 
 

As an example, first team has the ball on their own 30 and it’s 4th and 10. I highly doubt they go for it, where as the second team has no choice. They ARE going for it. But let’s roll this scenario back to 3rd down. Let’s say the first team is at their own 30 and it’s 3rd and 10. That team is looking to gain 10+ yards on the play, where as the second team in the same down, distance, and yardage situation, is at a minimum looking to make the yardage for a first shorter for the 4th down play, not necessarily going for the first on one play. 

17 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Or it is an old school defensive struggle and you kick off and pin them deep and try to get field position and kick a FG to win on the second possession.

 

I agree there are a lot of things that can go into the decision and having the ball third is a big advantage, but only if it goes to 3 possessions.  If you are in the second position - you have opportunities  to control whether there is a 3rd possession.  
 

I think it opens up a lot of options and I can not wait to see what analytics come from this.

 

 

I agree, if does open up a lot of options and I’m happy the NFL made this decision. Honestly, it took too long, but this is what OT should have been from the beginning. Honestly, I like this version better than the version the Bills proposed, which was just to play OT out (whatever the time limit is for OT). This way, there is different strategies that can be valid either way, and over time, it will be cool to see which trends develop. The only sad part is, we have to wait until the playoffs and then an OT in the playoffs. 
 

 

[Milanos Milano]

The fact that we are all still discussing this seriously makes me like the rule change already. This will spice things up and will make things interesting. Which is probably why the rule change was granted to begin with. 

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

I think our team is unique. This rule is going to be a case by case for many teams. Deferring offers a lot of benefits that fits our team’s identity. I think the only team out there that may cause us to change strategy would be KC. Otherwise I think it is wise to defer. We beat KC with White, and now we have Miller and another year of experience for Rousseau and Oliver. 

I agree. But like I said, it depends on how aggressive the team wants to be. If the team truly wants to control their destiny, they will want the 1st possession because of the sudden death advantage. But this is only an advantage if the team elects to go for 2 points. 

I think the chargers and broncos will the be teams to worry about.  Mobile QBs with better weapons and potentially fierce pass rushes.  Jones and Clark didn’t look the same last season.  I think JuJu is meh. MVS, meh.  
 

Cleveland and Cinci right there with them.   Lots of offenses to worry about.  

[Rochesterfan]

11 minutes ago, Billsrhody said:

Team 1 controls it's own destiny. Team 2 does not. 

 

Optimal strategy would be to get the ball first, try to score a touchdown and 2 point conversion. Which is the exact same goal as team 2. The only difference is that Team 1 would get the 3rd possession. 

 

I look at it exactly the opposite way.

 

Team 1 has little control because they have no way of knowing what team 2 will do.  They are trying to score, but then have to decide on going for 2.  No matter what they do - they can not win on that first drive - only dictate what team #2 needs to do to win.

 

Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win when they get the ball.  Did team 1 punt or kick a FG?  Did they score and kick and XP or get stopped at the 45 yard line?  Did they get a TD and make a 2 pt or miss the 2 point conversion?  Team 2 knows exactly what they have to do to win and prevent team 1 from getting the ball back.

 

Literally the only way team 1 is guaranteed to get the 3rd possession is a TD and 2 pt on the first drive - even then they don’t win - they only guaranteed a shot with the 3 possession.  The 2nd team gets the ball and in most instances has a shot to win the game on their possession.

 

 

[The Red King]

One advantage to getting it first.  If you drive deep but don't score, you punt and pin them very deep, maybe even close to their goal line.  Get a three and out and you get good field position and only need a FG now for the win.

[Rochesterfan]

19 minutes ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said:

I guess you didn't intend to, but below you said in bold, "70-80% will go for 2 as 2nd team-knowing that"....

 

I'm sure some will at times, but I don't think any where close to that number. I think more times than not they will try XP

 

 

 

I did not bold it - you did when you quoted me.

 

 

[Milanos Milano]

5 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I think the chargers and broncos will the be teams to worry about.  Mobile QBs with better weapons and potentially fierce pass rushes.  Jones and Clark didn’t look the same last season.  I think JuJu is meh. MVS, meh.  
 

Cleveland and Cinci right there with them.   Lots of offenses to worry about.  

I was extremely excited last season, but going into this season is the most optimistic I’ve EVER been. We are stacked in nearly every facet of the game. I feel like our defense is now getting to the point where they are talented enough to win games on their own, let alone thinking we have a crew of honey badgers on offense. I honestly could see an undefeated season this year if we have a really good draft. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by IronMaidenBills

[NewEra]

Just now, IronMaidenBills said:

I was extremely excited last season, but going into this season is the most optimistic I’ve EVER been. We are stacked in nearly every facet of the game. I feel like our defense is now getting to the point were they are talented enough to win games on there own, let alone thinking we have a crew of honey badgers on offense. I honestly could see an undefeated season this year if we have a really good draft. 

Undefeated is a bit of a stretch, but I do believe we’re currently the team to beat.  I’ve never been this excited for a season to start,