Kick the Ball in Overtime

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, Brand J said:

That’s why I’d kick off. If your defense gets a stop, ANY stop that first possession, all you need is a FG to win. If they can’t get a stop, you get 4 downs to match. The ONLY advantage the receiving team has is the third possession, assuming both teams scored equally on their touches. 

Yup! And equally means SF really needs to score a TD first.

 

Always take last ups in this situation with the new rules. 

[Brand J]

Just now, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

That's a pretty massive advantage though. Provided you get to that point of course. 

And generally, there’s a lot more factors at play that says the teams wouldn’t get there. A lot more outlets for the game to go another way if you will. Kicking off has more advantages per the first two (guaranteed) possessions.

[ExiledInIllinois]

7 minutes ago, Brand J said:

And generally, there’s a lot more factors at play that says the teams wouldn’t get there. A lot more outlets for the game to go another way if you will. Kicking off has more advantages per the first two (guaranteed) possessions.

Exactly. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Always best to take "last ups." You gain more information on what you need to win. They let KC walk them off. Inexcusable given they had coin toss. 

 

You'd think a home team in baseball would say: "Oh no, you're the visitor, you go last." LoL...

 

Maybe Shanahan was just being polite. 😆 

 

I really hope he knew how the OT rules in the playoffs differed from regular season. Even if 1st OT quarter ended, it just goes to OT quarter #2 and so on!

 

Why do you think Vinovich stated emphatically: "This is like the start of a new game."

 

Shanahan is an idiot.  😆 

[mannc]

4 hours ago, VaMilBill said:

I have no idea why any coach would take the ball first in overtime in the playoffs. If your defense is supposedly that good and you trust them to get a stop, kick it. Let them get the stop, force a punt and get better field position and higher chances for getting the requisite yards for a FG 

 

If your defense stinks and will just allow a TD anyways, you know exactly what you need on offense and have four downs per set of downs to achieve it. Plus if you do score a TD, and your defense stinks, just go for 2 and win the game with your offense and don’t give the other team another chance once it goes to sudden death. 
 

It doesn’t seem like a cosmic idea to me. What do I know. 

Under the new playoff OT rules, it’s a firing offense to take the ball first.  It’s almost like Shanahan didn’t know the rule.  Absolutely the worst coaching blunder I’ve ever seen in a Super Bowl.

[Scott7975]

If you dont think your defense can make a stop then you are better off taking the ball.  If you both score TDs or FGs on the first drives then the next drive a FG wins it.

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Not if the Chiefs tie it with a field goal.

 

 

But the Chiefs are only kicking a FG if they are in 4th and long. Because again they have the advantage of knowing what they have to do at every point. I don't think if KC gets to where the 9ers ended up..  4th and 4 inside the 10 they would kick a FG. Because they have the advantage of knowing what they have to beat. In that situation KC would go for it even in FG range. The team who goes first can do that but the risk for them if they don't make it is bigger because team 2 is then playing 4 down football until FG range and then chip shotting for the win. 

[1ManRaid]

7 hours ago, sullim4 said:

 

The one reason - if it goes to a third possession, it's sudden death and if you score you win.

 

That's the only reason why I can think you'd do it.

 

That's a pretty MAJOR and valid reason.

[VaMilBill]

22 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

That's a pretty MAJOR and valid reason.

Curious how many OT games actually get to a third possession

[Chaos]

8 hours ago, VaMilBill said:

I have no idea why any coach would take the ball first in overtime in the playoffs.

If the score is tied after each team has possessed the ball, the next score wins and the game becomes sudden death.

 

This is why one takes the ball first. If the niners deferred, and the chiefs scored a FG, then the niners scored a field, the chiefs only needed to get in field goal range to win the game. In the scenario fans would be writing threads "how can you concede the Chiefs first crack at sudden death"

The failure of the niners was NOT scoring the TD on the first possesion. The problem was not recieving first.  

[Watkins90]

Because if you score a TD on your first touch in OT you are guaranteed a third possession and a chance to win in sudden death. 

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But the Chiefs are only kicking a FG if they are in 4th and long. Because again they have the advantage of knowing what they have to do at every point. I don't think if KC gets to where the 9ers ended up..  4th and 4 inside the 10 they would kick a FG. Because they have the advantage of knowing what they have to beat. In that situation KC would go for it even in FG range. The team who goes first can do that but the risk for them if they don't make it is bigger because team 2 is then playing 4 down football until FG range and then chip shotting for the win. 

Thats the point.  The teams have fairly even chances to win the new rules.  The simple fact that there is a debate about recieving or kicking means the rules accomplished the goal.

Chiefs would have failed to score a td on fourth and goal from the 4 yard line just as often as they would have scored.  We know this because otherwise, the Chiefs would always go for 2 on extra points. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Thats the point.  The teams have fairly even chances to win the new rules.  The simple fact that there is a debate about recieving or kicking means the rules accomplished the goal.

Chiefs would have failed to score a td on fourth and goal from the 4 yard line just as often as they would have scored.  We know this because otherwise, the Chiefs would always go for 2 on extra points. 

 

My strong suspicion is as this system beds in the analytics will end up saying there is an advantage in going second. Knowledge is power. The team going 2nd knows what it needs. The only scenario in which the team going 2nd can't win the game when it receives the ball is the team going first going for and scoring a 2 pointer. That knowledge is worth a couple of percentage points advantage IMO.

[Never NEVER Give-up]

8 hours ago, benderbender said:

I assume they felt the Chiefs were gassed on defense. Only thing I could think of. But looking at the Niners D huffing and puffing on a much shorter drive, you knew they were getting Bills vs Cinci level energy effort 

. . . . and then one of their linebackers goes down with an injury. Trainers and doctors rush on to the field. They're looking at his legs and asking him what's wrong. He points to his finger! Obvious stall to help his gassed teammates.

[Chaos]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My strong suspicion is as this system beds in the analytics will end up saying there is an advantage in going second. Knowledge is power. The team going 2nd knows what it needs. The only scenario in which the team going 2nd can't win the game when it receives the ball is the team going first going for and scoring a 2 pointer. That knowledge is worth a couple of percentage points advantage IMO.

Knowledge can be power.  In this case, the knowledge was "If my defense, who has held the chiefs to 2 TDs in 10 Drives (20%) can hold the Chiefs to a field goal for one drive, my team gets first crack at sudden death, even I only get a FG on my first possession.  Plus if I get a TD on the first possession, I have the chance to win outright with a stop on the second possession.   

I don't think Analytics is ever going to show an expected value of greater than 50% of scoring a TD starting at your own 25, in the situation last night. Only the emotional "OMG we held Mahomes to two TD's on 10 drives, but we will never stop him again, because he knows he has to go for it on fourth down". 

[zow2]

Shanahan said the 49ers wanted the ball because they figured they would score first, the Chiefs might score to tie it...and SF wanted the 3rd OT possession to win it.

 

 

[VaMilBill]

36 minutes ago, Chaos said:

If the score is tied after each team has possessed the ball, the next score wins and the game becomes sudden death.

 

This is why one takes the ball first. If the niners deferred, and the chiefs scored a FG, then the niners scored a field, the chiefs only needed to get in field goal range to win the game. In the scenario fans would be writing threads "how can you concede the Chiefs first crack at sudden death"

The failure of the niners was NOT scoring the TD on the first possesion. The problem was not recieving first.  

I understand your sentiment. But tbh, there weren’t a ton of drives that ended in scores yesterday. So the defenses definitely had the upper hand most of the game to make me want to kick it. 
 

That being said, Pat Mahomes is on the other sideline. It’s hard enough to stop him on three downs, four downs is borderline impossible. I would much rather take the ball second, because if the chiefs score a TD, I’m going for a TD and a 2-pt conversion to end it so I don’t give it back. If the chiefs score a FG, I’m still going for a TD, unless it’s fourth and forever, to end the game and not give it back to their offense. 

[Chaos]

2 minutes ago, VaMilBill said:

I understand your sentiment. But tbh, there weren’t a ton of drives that ended in scores yesterday. So the defenses definitely had the upper hand most of the game to make me want to kick it. 
 

That being said, Pat Mahomes is on the other sideline. It’s hard enough to stop him on three downs, four downs is borderline impossible. I would much rather take the ball second, because if the chiefs score a TD, I’m going for a TD and a 2-pt conversion to end it so I don’t give it back. If the chiefs score a FG, I’m still going for a TD, unless it’s fourth and forever, to end the game and not give it back to their offense. 

If it was borderline impossible the Chiefs would never punt.  it’s not borderline impossible.   Even it it was, the niners were allowed to use all four downs to get a TD on the first possession if they possessed true knowledge that it would be impossible to stop Mahomes.  

[VaMilBill]

2 minutes ago, Chaos said:

If it was borderline impossible the Chiefs would never punt.  it’s not borderline impossible.   Even it it was, the niners were allowed to use all four downs to get a TD on the first possession if they possessed true knowledge that it would be impossible to stop Mahomes.  

Ok. Well the way I’m arguing against didn’t pan out so not sure why you’re vehemently against having kicked it instead. 

[Matt_In_NH]

This is not super obvious.  If you get the ball second you know what you need that is an advantage.  On the other hand if both teams kick a FG or score a TD then you get the ball on the third drive for true sudden death which is an advantage.  

Edited February 12 by Matt_In_NH