Kick the Ball in Overtime

[4th&long]

9 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. 

They wanted the ball the third time which makes sense. None of you thought that far ahead.

[Einstein]

Just now, 4th&long said:

They wanted the ball the third time which makes sense. None of you thought that far ahead.

 

It doesn’t make sense.

 

There was not going to be a third time. Even if SF scored a TD, KC was just going to score a TD and then go for a 2 point conversion (which is the right move).

 

No one was getting a third possesion.

[Charles Romes]

I can’t believe the flack the niners are getting for this decision. Suppose they DID kickoff in OT and DID score a TD instead of a FG on their first possession knowing exactly what they needed.  Then it’s game over anyway because all mahomes needs is a FG to win on the ensuing possession. 

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Charles Romes said:

I can’t believe the flack the niners are getting for this decision. Suppose they DID kickoff in OT and DID score a TD instead of a FG on their first possession knowing exactly what they needed.  Then it’s game over anyway because all mahomes needs is a FG to win on the ensuing possession. 

 

No.

You go for the 2 point conversion in that case.

 

This is basic analytics folks. You kick-off, get the extra down on your possession, then go for 2 to win the game.

 

Which is exactly what KC would have done even if San Fran scored a TD on their first possesion.

 

I bet no coach ever takes the ball first in that situation ever again (playoff OT rules).

[The Red King]

If you receive, so long as you at least match the other team you get first crack at sudden death.  If SF even just held KC to a FG, they would get the ball back just needing another FG for the win.

[Chaos]

19 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

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.  

I think the niners also had another option, as a benefit of going first:

They had third and four from the nine.  They passed on third down, and kicked the field goal.  The pass on third down was more likely to get a TD than a run on that down. 

However, if they decided they would run on third and fourth down in that situation, they might have gotten a first.  Or they might have gotten the ball closer to the five.  Turning the ball over that five, means that instead of stopping a Chiefs TD starting from the 25 (with the knowledge they need a TD), the defense has to prevent the field with KC knowing that if they go for it on fourth down, in their own end of the field they will almost certainly lose the game if they don't convert.  So punting comes back on the table. 

[NoSaint]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But Mahomes would just go for 2. And you still risk losing never having touched it again and having given him an extra down to get in. Short of stopping the best player in football with 4 downs at his disposal every time the BEST case scenario actually is you bring the game down to a 2 point conversion attempt. That is a better than 50/50 proposition for above average offenses according to the data.

I think you are allowing yourself to be a prisoner of last nights moment. Nothing says either team scores a TD. 
 

once across the 50 the chiefs very well could end with 3 last night 

 

and ignoring last night, there’s a chance neither team scores on their first drive. 
 

im not arguing it’s a slam dunk choice but maintain most are completely discounting the possible upsides. 

[Andrew Son]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I think you are allowing yourself to be a prisoner of last nights moment. Nothing says either team scores a TD. 
 

once across the 50 the chiefs very well could end with 3 last night 

 

and ignoring last night, there’s a chance neither team scores on their first drive. 
 

im not arguing it’s a slam dunk choice but maintain most are completely discounting the possible upsides. 

It is simply a shame dunk decision.  By kicking off you get four downs to do whatever you know you need to do.  It’s a massive advantage and I’m frankly shocked it could be botched in this situation 

[GunnerBill]

53 minutes ago, Chaos said:

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". 

 

Strong disagree.

[NoSaint]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Strong disagree.

then the 9ers know they must go for it and not kick if the TD is inevitable 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, NoSaint said:

then the 9ers know they must go for it and not kick if the TD is inevitable 

 

Well I agree. Once you have made the bad decision to take the ball you HAVE to play like only a TD is good enough. And you probably have to go for (and get) 2. Otherwise your opponent can win without you ever seeing the ball again.

[Andrew Son]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

then the 9ers know they must go for it and not kick if the TD is inevitable 

That’s the whole point.  They don’t “know.”  Knowledge is afforded to the second team to possess 

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well I agree. Once you have made the bad decision to take the ball you HAVE to play like only a TD is good enough. And you probably have to go for (and get) 2. Otherwise your opponent can win without you ever seeing the ball again.

honest question - have we ever seen the chiefs go for two there? I know it’s a niche situation they might not have faced but curious if we’ve seen it 

1 minute ago, SWATeam said:

That’s the whole point.  They don’t “know.”  Knowledge is afforded to the second team to possess 

I understand. But many are acting like it’s without question anyway which would negate a lot 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, NoSaint said:

honest question - have we ever seen the chiefs go for two there? I know it’s a niche situation they might not have faced but curious if we’ve seen it 

 

No. That is the first time we have seen those overtime rules in action. I bet every single team having watched what the 9ers did will have their analytics guys working overtime on it this offseason. 

 

If we see it next post season I am sure the play will be to defer.

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

9 hours ago, MPT said:

Yeah it's pretty simple. If you receive the ball first, you get 3 downs to accomplish your goal. If you receive the ball second, you get 4 downs and it makes a lot of decisions easier.

This is true, but if both team score, you can win it on the third possession.

[Andrew Son]

3 minutes ago, ControllerOfPlanetX said:

This is true, but if both team score, you can win it on the third possession.

People keep saying this.  But in no way does that trump the massive advantage of knowing exactly what you need on your first possession.  It is simply mind boggling 

[foreboding]

10 hours ago, sullim4 said:

I don't disagree with you, but having seen this story many times before as a Bills fan, I go for it on fourth down rather than kick the FG.

 

You know Mahomes and Kelce have a greater than 50 percent chance of marching down the field and scoring the TD.  A FG is as good as a punt.

It felt inevitable. 

[Brand J]

8 minutes ago, ControllerOfPlanetX said:

This is true, but if both team score, you can win it on the third possession.

Again, there’s far more variables in a football game that will have it end in another scenario, so having knowledge of what you need on the first two (guaranteed) drives trumps a hypothetical sudden death third drive. 

[NewEra]

Another version of a lucky bounce for KC.  This was the dumbest decision in the history of football imo.  Lots of benefit to kicking off to start OT.  I don’t see much of an advantage for receiving. 

Maybe ST should fire shanahan?  😂 no.  

[Chaos]

29 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Another version of a lucky bounce for KC.  This was the dumbest decision in the history of football imo.  Lots of benefit to kicking off to start OT.  I don’t see much of an advantage for receiving. 

Maybe ST should fire shanahan?  😂 no.  

Going first means first crack at sudden death if the first two drives end in a tie. This is not a trivial benefit of going first.