Kick the Ball in Overtime

[NewEra]

9 minutes ago, Chaos said:

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. 

This is true.  I retract my statement.  I do believe it’s more beneficial to kick off.  

[Rocbillsfan1]

To all the people talking about the third possession, while it is an advantage that is such a slim advantage. The obvious big advantage is getting the ball second and knowing what you have to do every step of the way. In a game of inches where scoring is at a premium this is a huge advantage to have so you know how to call 3rd and 4th down plays. It’s borderline criminal to take the ball first. You never give the GOAT the psychological and competitive advantage of getting the ball 2nd and knowing what you have to do. I don’t think it’s been talked about enough but you are putting immense pressure on your offense by taking the ball first and even if you score the TD you still give the other team 4 downs with their attempt. So dumb. 

[Chaos]

1 minute ago, Rocbillsfan1 said:

To all the people talking about the third possession, while it is an advantage that is such a slim advantage. The obvious big advantage is getting the ball second and knowing what you have to do every step of the way. In a game of inches where scoring is at a premium this is a huge advantage to have so you know how to call 3rd and 4th down plays. It’s borderline criminal to take the ball first. You never give the GOAT the psychological and competitive advantage of getting the ball 2nd and knowing what you have to do. I don’t think it’s been talked about enough but you are putting immense pressure on your offense by taking the ball first and even if you score the TD you still give the other team 4 downs with their attempt. So dumb. 

If the niners scored a td, the biggest advantage at that point is first crack at sudden death.  Since TDs are inevitable when you go for it on all fourth downs (as I have learned in this thread) the niners simply needed to go for it on fourth down and get the inevitable TD.  

[hjnick]

11 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. 

IMO, this is why SF lost the SB...

[Big Turk]

I'd always prefer to know exactly what I need rather than letting the other team know exactly what they need, especially when there is no result that ends the game in that situation.

[jkeerie]

The 49er players weren't even aware of the OT rules.  They talked about it in their pressers.  By contrast, KC's plan was if they scored a TD they would go for two.  KC was prepared for all situations.

[Brand J]

4 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

The 49er players weren't even aware of the OT rules.  They talked about it in their pressers.  By contrast, KC's plan was if they scored a TD they would go for two.  KC was prepared for all situations.

If I was the first team to possess and scored a TD, no way am I going for 2! If I was the 2nd team that needed a TD, strong chance I’d go for 2 to end it and not send it to a 3rd series.

[jkeerie]

5 minutes ago, Brand J said:

If I was the first team to possess and scored a TD, no way am I going for 2! If I was the 2nd team that needed a TD, strong chance I’d go for 2 to end it and not send it to a 3rd series.

I would have been surprised if KC had gone for two if they scored a TD.  It was Jones who spoke about it so he may have meant getting the second possession if SF scored a TD.  The point is KC players were aware and prepared in contrast to SF.

Edited February 12 by jkeerie

[Chaos]

Below is the complete set of scenarios for the recieve and kick team:

1. There are 22 permutations of outcomes on the first two drives. Not all are equally likely.  But aside from a safety it covers all possibilties.
2. There are seven scenarios where the receive team scores first. Six of the outcomes are favorable to the recieve team.  One of the seven is score FG, other team scores TD.  Its is not obvious that this 7th scenario is so much  likelier than the other 6 combined that it is a compelling reason to not receive.
3. There are 15 scenarios where the receive team does not score. Six of those scenarios are result in the receive team losing.  If the receive team does not score on its first possession, the odds of them winning drop significantly. In this sitution, the scenario of the kick team kicking a FG strikes me as a bigger possibility than all of the other scenarios combined.  But it is not inevitable. 

My personal conclusion is that it is a push to receive or kick. Which is as it should be. In a game where the opponent has been held to 19 points through 4 quarters, and my team had only scored 19 point I probably would lean towards receive. 

My other conclusions are that if you don't score on your first possession, whether you are the receive team or kick team you are likely to lose the game. And if you score a TD on your first possession as the receive team, you are very likely to win the game. 

Note : the grey scenarios would never happen, because they would be same as simply conceding the game. 

Edited February 12 by Chaos

[Brand J]

The fact that it is a debate in strategy proves they got the OT rules correct. Neither team is at a significant disadvantage like before.

[msw2112]

12 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 the rationale that Shanahan stated in the post-game press conference.  I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it's the reason that he stated.

[Sweats]

11 hours ago, BBFL said:

The bigger question that needs to be asked is why they abandoned the run from the 2nd quarter until late in the 3rd…

 

They win that game if they stuck with it. 
 

Baltimore did the same thing. An incredible rushing team just mailing it in even after immediate success… 

 

 

KC tightened up the trenches and zeroed in on the run game. The Niners felt they had a better chance with Purdy throwing it than CM running it......sounds like a very McClappy thing to do IMO.

[djp14150]

11 hours ago, BBFL said:

But it was… They only rushed the ball 5 times between the FG to start the 2nd and TD in the start of the 4th…

 

3 of those 5 attempts were by McCaffrey. 1 by Deebo and the other by Mitchell. 
 

KC defended the run well but you don’t abandon it when it was your bread and butter to get you to the SB…

you don’t try to run on 3rd and long or 2nd and over 10.  I can’t find rankings of 3rd and long success rates. I think buf snd kc are near the top.

[djp14150]

1 hour ago, Rocbillsfan1 said:

To all the people talking about the third possession, while it is an advantage that is such a slim advantage. The obvious big advantage is getting the ball second and knowing what you have to do every step of the way. In a game of inches where scoring is at a premium this is a huge advantage to have so you know how to call 3rd and 4th down plays. It’s borderline criminal to take the ball first. You never give the GOAT the psychological and competitive advantage of getting the ball 2nd and knowing what you have to do. I don’t think it’s been talked about enough but you are putting immense pressure on your offense by taking the ball first and even if you score the TD you still give the other team 4 downs with their attempt. So dumb. 

if you go 2nd then for it to pay off you must say if they score a TD and then I score a TD, then I’m going for 2 and the win.

 

in the regular season getting a TD wins the game so having the choice matters depending on your team, who they are playing,and how that day was going. If you rrm to be in a low scoring FG game with a bunch of short drives snd punts I’d be more inclined to punt and play D. If it was a back and forth high scoring game I’ll take the ball first.

[BillMafia716ix]

11 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:

College teams always choose to play defense first in OT. Not sure why it’s different in the NFL especially when your both guaranteed a possession. I know in the regular season if you score a TD first you win the game so maybe that’s what they thought. Complete coaching blunder on Shannahan. 

I called it. Now it’s coming out that the players didn’t even know the rules. What a failure by the coaching staff 

[hondo in seattle]

12 hours ago, CaptnCoke11 said:

Yeah not a smart move giving Mahomes 4 downs for an entire drive 

 

If you kick, it's like doing reconnaissance in the army.  By kicking you know what you're up against.  Did the other team score 3 on their drive?  7?  Zero?  Letting the other team go first tells you what you need to accomplish.  

 

If the opponent scores on the opening OT drive, you're not playing with 3 downs anymore.  You're playing with 4.  And it's really hard to stop a good offense playing with 4 downs.  They only need to average 2.5 yards per play.  

[ExWNYer]

47 minutes ago, Brand J said:

The fact that it is a debate in strategy proves they got the OT rules correct. Neither team is at a significant disadvantage like before.

 

Correct.

 

While I was in the "take the ball second" camp, there simply isn't enough live data yet to support either position. It was said somewhere today that 120,000 simulations were run and taking the ball first, I believe, resulted in a win 50.2% of the time. Statistically, it is 50/50. 

 

 

[VaMilBill]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

I'd always prefer to know exactly what I need rather than letting the other team know exactly what they need, especially when there is no result that ends the game in that situation.

Patrick Mahomes said if they won the toss they would have kicked the ball first. 

[mannc]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

I'd always prefer to know exactly what I need rather than letting the other team know exactly what they need, especially when there is no result that ends the game in that situation.

This is really it.  KC and Mahomes knew they needed at least three points, so until they got inside the SF 40-yardline the Chiefs were operating with an extra down--a huge advantage that Purdy did not have on SF's possession.  And if the Niners had scored a TD on their drive, that advantage becomes more--not less--pronounced, because the Chiefs are operating with four downs the entire length of the field.  Mahomes with four downs to work with in that situation is pretty much unstoppable.  As I said, it's almost like Shanahan was unaware of the rule change...that's really the only logical explanation for his decision.  

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Correct.

 

While I was in the "take the ball second" camp, there simply isn't enough live data yet to support either position. It was said somewhere today that 120,000 simulations were run and taking the ball first, I believe, resulted in a win 50.2% of the time. Statistically, it is 50/50. 

 

 

That's a cop-out.  All you have to do is look at college football to know that the team that has the ball second in that situation has a HUGE advantage.  I know the college rules are a little different, but the principle is the same:  Much better to know what you need to do on your first possession and potentially have the advantage of utilizing a four-down offense.  In fact, the advantage might be even more pronounced under the NFL rules because the offense has the advantage of playing four-down football the entire length of the field, not just from the opponent's 25 yard line.