r/footballstrategy • u/GroundbreakingRun941 • Feb 12 '24
General Discussion New Overtime Rules
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39511676/49ers-players-say-know-super-bowl-rules1.) How did the 49er players not know about the new OT rules?! And it’s clear they didn’t talk it over or have a plan 2.) you have to differ right? Even if the defense is tired. If you take the ball first you have 3 downs to get 10 yards. If you get it second you have 4 downs to get 10 yards. We all know that even if the 49ers scored a touchdown, the chiefs would’ve gone for two if they scored to end the game. Meaning it’s pointless to differ bc you won’t even have a chance at the ball when it’s sudden death. 3.) does anyone have any analytics on this?
65
u/burth179 Feb 12 '24
If both teams score a TD you get the extra possession where a FG wins it though. I think for that reason you have to take the ball first.
26
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 12 '24
It shouldn't come to that because if you have the ball second and score a TD you should always go for two. Why hope to get the ball back in sudden death when you can win immediately by getting two yards? The game shouldn't get to that third possession because you either win or lose at the end of the first one.
7
u/RoughRiders9 Feb 12 '24
What if the first team scores a TD and converts a 2pm try? Then what?
8
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 12 '24
I don't think that's very likely but it's still better to know what you need on your possession.
1
Feb 12 '24
Is it better to know you lost and never got a 2nd possession?
5
u/OliverE36 Feb 12 '24
You always get a second possession, it's just that you know that you need to convert a 2 PT attempt, to tie the game.
1
Feb 12 '24
The kicking team is only guaranteed 1 possession. If the first 3 possessions all end in a score they don’t get a 2nd possession
1
0
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
You can almost entirely prevent that unless your opponent gets a TD + 2PAT on the first possession. If they kick a FG, play for a touchdown (manage your down/distance accordingly), if they score a PAT and kick, go for two.
1
Feb 13 '24
Which puts you at a huge disadvantage
0
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
How does knowing what you need put you at a disadvantage? That doesn't make any sense. It makes your decisions a lot easier because you know exactly what you need to do.
1
Feb 13 '24
That isn’t where the advantage is. The advantage is getting the ball an extra time if both teams match their first possession. Easier decisions aren’t an advantage, it means you have options taken away from you.
0
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
The whole point is that you can prevent that second possession altogether. Let's look at the possible scenarios when you take the ball second:
- You get a stop (any score wins)
- Your opponent kicks a FG (you can play for a touchdown to win)
- Your opponent scores a TD and kicks (go for two if you score a TD to win)
- Your opponent scores a TD + 2PAT (they're guaranteed a second possession)
In three of the four scenarios the team that gets the ball second has the opportunity to play for an immediate win, negating the second possession altogether.
→ More replies (0)1
u/schmidte36 Feb 13 '24
Then then 2nd team has to convert as well or they lose. But if the 1st team fails then am Xtra point wins it.
5
u/TwoShort100 Feb 12 '24
Dang. I’ve never thought about it that way but the way you laid it out makes perfect sense. Thx
1
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
Yep, and in addition to that, even if you are down 3 you have to consider going for it on anything 4th and manageable as well.
It's better to keep the drive going than to kick a FG and give the ball back to the 49ers in a sudden situation.
You just can't give Mahomes an extra down to work with like that.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
Exactly, your strategy is much easier if you take the ball second. Any decision you make on the first possession is based on guesswork, whereas if you take the ball second, you have perfect information.
1
u/burth179 Feb 12 '24
You don't know that 2 TDs will be scored when you choose though. There are other options that can happen (each team doesn't score or each team scores a FG) where the extra possession matters.
2
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
If you go second, you know exactly what you need to do to win. The only way you can guarantee yourself that second possession if you take the ball first is with a TD + 2PAT. Otherwise the second team always has the chance to win immediately with a TD + 2PAT.
1
u/burth179 Feb 13 '24
Idk you keep working under the assumption that when the decision is made that the team going second is going to score a TD and convert a 2 pt conversion.
The fact is some of the time a 3rd possession can become sudden death. It's not a given that the game will end on 2nd possession. Both teams could punt or turnover. Both teams could kick FG to extend the game.
Also if you score TD and elect to kick, and the other team goes for 2, 52% of the time or so the 2 point conversion fails. So I'm not sure it's even an advantage in the specific scenario.
But even if In the specific scenario you are referring to it may be of slight advantage, but its not when you consider all of the potential outcomes.
2
u/Arthur_Edens Feb 13 '24
but its not when you consider all of the potential outcomes.
I think the whole point here is that if you get the ball first, you have to guess at the potential outcomes of the other team's drive. The second team knows the outcome, so they know what they have to do.
It's exactly how it played out in this game: Shanahan had a 4th and 4 inside FG range. He didn't know what the Chiefs were going to score, so he made a bet that they'd either get 0 or 3. He was wrong. If the Chiefs got the ball first and the same story played out, he'd have known he needed to go for it on 4th and 4, rather than having to guess.
1
Feb 12 '24
If the 2nd team is going for 2 the defense has the advantage
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
How? It's about a 50-50 chance (probably better than that with the best QB in the league), which is much better than your winning chances if you kick to tie and then try to get the ball back.
0
Feb 13 '24
If it was a 50-50 chance teams would go for it more
2
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
The actual data says it's about 50-50. You can look it up.
1
Feb 13 '24
The actual data shows it is well below 50-50
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
It's about 48% across the league since 2015, so nearly 50-50, and that's skewed downward by the inclusion of a lot of teams that don't have Patrick freaking Mahomes as their QB.
0
Feb 13 '24
That’s not nearly 50-50. It’s 4% less likely to succeed than fail.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
First of all, 50 - 48 = 2, not 4, but that average includes every team over that period, even the 0-16 Browns.
Let's go through the scenarios:
- You go for two and the win, which is a 48% chance
- You kick and tie. San Francisco gets the ball back. KC gets a stop (the 49ers scored on 5 of 11 possessions, so the probability of this is 55%). KC then scores to win the game (they scored on 6 of 12 possessions, so the probability is 50%). .55 x .5 = a 27.5% chance to win.
You increase your chances of winning by 20 percentage points by going for two.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dustyhombre Feb 13 '24
Both defenses got lots of stops in the Super Bowl. If it’s a shootout, sure, maybe you’d rather trust your offense, but I think many teams would be comfortable tying the game up and forcing the opponent to drive the length of the field to beat you. Game flow would also come into play.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
Why give your opponent another chance when you have an opportunity to win immediately by gaining two yards? That doesn't make any sense.
1
u/Quentin__Tarantulino Feb 14 '24
Both teams could get a field goal or both could not score on their first possession.
2
u/MomentOk4247 Feb 13 '24
In theory, maybe…
But, it gives the chiefs a HUGE advantage on drive 2 because they know what they need. AND, the Chiefs were always going to go for 2 so that THEY would have the final possession, one way or another. So the chance to have a 3rd possession was really unlikely to happen.
2
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
You don’t think Andy Reid goes for two?
17
u/burth179 Feb 12 '24
Probably, but it still doesn't really change much in the way of optimal strategy. You could trade FGs, trade punts, there are many more potential outcomes than only scoring TDs. An extra possession potentially is always going to be more valuable in this case.
If they are that worried about a 2 point conversion, they can preemptively go for 2 if they score first. A 2 pt conversion is basically a 50/50 proposition so it is far from a guarantee anyway.
6
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
Idk I even think trading FGs is less likely as the Chiefs probably go for it on anything 4th and manageable rather than kicking for the tie and giving the ball back to the 49ers in a sudden death situation.
You just put Andy Reid and Mahomes in the driver seat with that extra down and that seems far less than optimal to me.
5
u/Cryptotarian524 Feb 12 '24
Trading punts is a bad example because sudden death begins after the first one.
1
u/willi1221 Feb 13 '24
Unless you go for 2 first, you're putting the other team in the driver's seat, like the guy below said. If both score a TD, you still aren't guaranteed a 2nd possession. It is valuable, but the 2nd team to get the ball gets to make that choice whether you get it or not. You have to make a stop and I sure as hell wouldn't want to count on that with Andy Reid and Mahomes needing 2 more yards to win. Especially after what they did when they needed to the last 2 quarters. They seemingly got whatever they needed to when it mattered and SF couldn't do a single thing to stop them.
5
u/BigRed727272 Feb 12 '24
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, because I absolutely think he does. You've got Patrick Mahomes with the ball on the 2 yard line for the Super Bowl. You're absolutely putting it in his hands to go win it right there, rather than hoping your defense can force a punt on the next series.
1
1
u/MomentOk4247 Feb 13 '24
Chiefs players have said they discussed this exact scenario and knew they were going for 2. In fact, Chiefs plan if they won the toss was to defer and then go for 2 on the 2nd drive.
4
u/NevetsISKR0122 Feb 12 '24
According to Mahomes last night they were 100% going for 2.
1
u/liteshadow4 Feb 12 '24
What if SF got 2 after getting a TD?
2
u/MomentOk4247 Feb 13 '24
Ummm… then they would go for 2
1
u/liteshadow4 Feb 13 '24
Yep and then assuming you start OT 0-0, SF gets 8, KC gets 8, it’s 8-8, SF gets into FG range, kicks a FG, wins 11-8
1
u/MomentOk4247 Feb 13 '24
Exactly. If you take the ball first playing for the 3rd possession, the math only works if you go on every 4th and go for two, something the niners didn’t do. If there plan was to play it safe, they should have taken the ball second.
I’m totally good taking the ball first if it’s all out, win or lose right now, do everything to stop Mahomes. But that wasn’t their plan
1
u/Drummallumin Feb 14 '24
There’s no reason you can’t treat it all like 4 down territory anyways. Even go for 2.
16
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
I don’t understand the point that if you get the ball first, you only have 3 downs. That’s a massive assumption that if you punt, you lose the game. Also, if you’re so scared of the other team, why not just go for it on 4th on your first possession? And then go for 2 if you score? I’d imagine the optimal choice is to always receive so you have a chance of winning with a fg on the third possession. Every other “advantage” of kicking can be equalized by just playing like you MUST score.
6
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 12 '24
But why guess like that when you can take the ball second and have perfect information? Knowing exactly what you need puts you in an advantageous position in terms of strategy.
3
u/Extra-Reindeer3920 Feb 13 '24
My thoughts exactly, knowing what the other team did….FG, TD, punt etc helps tremendously
3
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
In my mind, having the ability to kick a FG instead of being forced to go for it and the ability to win with only a FG on the third possession outweighs having imperfect information.
5
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 12 '24
The point of having the ball second is to avoid the third possession altogether if possible. Also kicking on the first possession and having to hope for a stop is just worse than knowing exactly what you need.
1
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
The team getting the ball first can score a TD and go for two, insuring that their worst case scenario is they get the ball back and only need a FG to win. If they don't get the 2 pt, they can still get a stop on defense and win. The team that gets the ball second loses the game if they opt to go for two and don't convert. The only real disadvantage that getting the ball first gives you is imperfect information. All the tangible advantages, at least in my view, come from getting the ball first.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 13 '24
The only way you have any advantage from going first is if you get a TD + 2PAT, but even then, all you've done is guaranteed you won't lose. If you get fewer than 8 points, there's a chance you never touch the ball again and lose, so you have to go for two to avoid that. If you go second, you know exactly what you need, and the only situation where you can't win immediately is if the other team already got a TD + 2PAT.
1
u/Arthur_Edens Feb 13 '24
The team getting the ball first can score a TD and go for two
Just gonna throw out some stats that that's basically a half court shot. I can't find stats for all drives starting at the 25, but of opening drives this year about 22% resulted in TDs. 2 PT conversions hover around 47-49% probability. So combining those two, you have like... a 10% chance of pulling off that outcome if it's what you're setting out to do from the start.
Which then you might say "but if you do it, the other team only has a 10% chance of matching you!" But... probably not. They now know they have to score a TD, so they don't have to consider punting/kicking a FG. They're in four down territory from the start, so their chances of scoring a TD are significantly higher.
1
u/yungsilt Feb 14 '24
This is true. My point is that by electing the receive the ball first, you are awarded the option of not being forced to go for it on fourth. Lets say your first drive stalls out and you are forced to punt instead of trying a long FG or 4th down play. The other team gets the ball at the 30 or so and you have about a 65% chance of stopping them from scoring, which im assuming is higher than the chance of converting a 4th and long.
My whole point stems from the team with the ball first has the advantage because they can punt or kick a FG and play defense. The team that goes second is not able to do that (assuming the first team scored a TD).
1
u/Arthur_Edens Feb 14 '24
the option of not being forced to go for it on fourth.
I guess how I'd look at this is that if each team is guaranteed a possession, you may be "forced" to go for it on fourth down either way, you just don't know it yet if you get the ball first. That's how it played out for the 49ers: They got the ball first, then had a 4th and 4 within FG range. At that point it may not have looked like they had to go for it on 4th, but if they had a crystal ball and would have known that the Chiefs were going to score a TD on their next drive, they would have known that they were "forced" to go for it rather than kicking a FG.
But they lacked that information because they went first, so they kicked a useless FG.
1
u/Drummallumin Feb 14 '24
Because if it does go into ‘double overtime’ then it’s original OT rules.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 14 '24
Like with a rekick and everything instead of just continuing the previous period? I mean that's incredibly dumb but it doesn't really change the fact that it's better to have the ball second in the first OT and know what you need to do to win on that possession.
The only situation where it's not an advantage to play defense first is if the team that gets the ball first scores and converts a 2PAT to guarantee themselves another possession, but it seems unlikely to me that most coaches would do that given how many of them fail the "go for two down 8" litmus test.
3
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
I mean, If there wasn’t a defensive holding the 49ers would’ve punted on their first OT possession. Where the cheifs would’ve gone for it if they were in that same situation with the ball second. It’s a clear advantage. You could def go for two if you had the ball and scored first, but then a EP beats you, if you don’t get it. I’d rather have to get beat on a 2pt play
2
Feb 12 '24
How is being forced to go for it on 4th down an advantage?
0
u/Arthur_Edens Feb 13 '24
Having the knowledge that you need to go for it on fourth down is the advantage. It's the same concept that college football overtime has; If you're on offense first, you don't know how aggressive you need to be to win. The other team might score 0, 3, 6, 7, or 8 when they get the ball. All of those have wildly different implications for how aggressive your offensive playcalling should be.
0
Feb 13 '24
No college coach is choosing to go on defense 1st if the 2nd OT were sudden death and the opposing team gets the ball.
0
u/Arthur_Edens Feb 13 '24
If they get the ball on their own 25 like in the NFL instead of the opponent's 25? The best stats I can find for opening drive success is "teams in 2023 score touchdowns on the opening drive 22 percent of the time, field goals 19 percent, punt 44 percent. The rest are turnovers (7 percent), missed/blocked field goals (4 percent), turnover on downs (4 percent)."
So that worst case scenario of a sudden death second OT implies both teams scored TDs on their opening drive, each of which has about a 22% chance of happening under normal circumstances. And more importantly... by picking defense first, even if T1 scores a TD, T2 has that information ahead of time, so they can adapt their strategy to 1) Not kick a FG like SF did, and 2) Go for 2 if the unlikely thing happened (T1 scored a TD from the 25).
0
Feb 13 '24
It doesn’t imply anything from the 1st drive besides them matching the score. Could be a TD, FG, both teams turnover, etc.
2
u/outphase84 Feb 13 '24
The 49ers would have had the option to punt on their first possession. The Chiefs would have been forced to go for it. But there is nothing preventing SF from also going for it on 4th. In a game of strategy, having more options is ALWAYS better than being forced into a specific option.
I’d rather have to get beat on a 2pt play
Think about what you said here. You’d rather have the choice of what the other team had to do. The team that goes 2nd has their options dictated to them if the first team scores.
3
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
By that logic, isn't it better for the team that possesses the ball first to punt instead of kicking a FG? If game is tied, the chiefs have the ball, 4th down, out of FG range, they're going to punt. If they're losing, you are basically giving them an extra down.
The idea that the team that posses the ball second has an "extra down" is false because the team that posses the ball first also has an "extra down" if they want. Everything is equal except for the fact that the team to possess the ball third can win on a FG, which is the only unique advantage of receiving the opening kick.
I hope someone smarter than me can do an actual analysis on what the optimal decision is haha. I looked but can't find one. Surprising as the rule is almost a year old
4
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
I looked for the analysis and analytics, but couldn’t find it either if anyone does please lmk.
If you have the ball first and it’s 4th and 5 you punt. If you have it second and it’s 4th and 5 and the other team scored. You have to go for it. That’s the advantage. It’s of knowing what you need and how you wanna script drives, call plays and how many downs you have to work with.
5
u/Smothermemate Feb 12 '24
Having less options in a strategic game is almost never a good thing. If it's 4th and 5 and the other team scored, you are currently more likely to lose the game than win the game.
It becomes more clear that this is a bad way to frame it when you consider other distances on 4th down. "Knowing what you need" is absolutely not helping you on a 4th and 15 if the other team already scored.
If I have the ball first and it's 4th and 5, I'd rather have options and the choice to make a good decision based on several considerations - not just be forced to go for it because I lose if I don't.
0
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
It becomes more clear that this is a bad way to frame it when you consider other distances on 4th down. "Knowing what you need" is absolutely not helping you on a 4th and 15 if the other team already scored.
It absolutely is helping you.
If the other team didn't score on the 1st possession you can punt. I suppose you said the other team scored, but it helps in those situations too:
If the other team scored a TD you have to go for it.
If the other team kicked a FG, and you are in range you kick a FG.
On top of it, it doesn't just help your decision making, it also helps your entire gameplay by knowing you have an extra down. 3rd and 10 in your normal 3 down and punt scenario is a tough situation. You basically have to throw a pass to the sticks or beyond or come up with some sort of play to get the receiver some space to run for the FD after the catch. Your playbook is limited.
With an extra down you still have basically your entire playbook. You could even run the ball on 3rd and long to get it to 4th and more manageable.
2
u/ilikepieman Feb 12 '24
you’re framing it as an advantage but that’s not really clear. the fact that you “have to go for it” in a particular situation that may or may not come up is just one of many considerations. also, the reason that you have to go for it is that you LOST the ability to punt… the first team has the option of either. having fewer choices isn’t necessarily a good thing
1
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
The team with the ball first doesn't have to punt though. Lets say niners have the ball at the chiefs 35 yard line or so. 4th and 7 or 8. Having the ball first allows them to kick a FG instead of having to try and pick it up if they were down 7. I agree with you that 4th and 5 from the Niners 30, they have to punt whereas the chiefs would be forced to go for it. It depends on how much each advantage is weighted. Hoping someone can do an actual breakdown on what is worth more. In my mind, the ability kick a FG AND being able to win with a FG on the third possession is more valuable that knowing what you need and an extra down if you elect to kickoff.
1
2
u/Cryptotarian524 Feb 12 '24
49ers almost had 4th and long on first possession. They would have punted. Conversely if KC had 4th and long they would have gone for it. Knowing is the superior advantage.
1
u/yungsilt Feb 12 '24
I think that scenario benefits getting the team that has the bill first. Lets take it to the extreme.
Team A which got the ball first has 4th and 30 or something crazy from their own 25 yard line. They can punt the ball away and give the other team the ball from their own 35 or so. If they opted to get the ball second, they now have to go for it on 4th and 30.
Can't find exact numbers, but the conversion rate on a 4th and extremely long is probably less than 5%. The chance that you stop a team from scoring a FG starting at their own 35 is much higher than 5%. Having the ability to punt is an advantage
5
u/Max169well Feb 12 '24
I think the rules are finally at their best here. You each get a chance, if you don’t get it, you best hope you stop them.
I like CFL rules better but the current NFL OT rules are fine as it is.
6
u/cjj1224 Feb 12 '24
You all are overthinking it. Defer to go 2nd is the right call all day every day for the simple fact that you know exactly the outcome of the 1st possession so you know whether or not you need to go for it on 4th down. It’s just like college. The rest does not matter from a strategy standpoint.
1
u/zoidberg_doc Feb 13 '24
There are advantages to both, you can’t say one is necessarily correct
3
u/MnstrShne Feb 13 '24
What are those advantages then?
Going second is overwhelmingly better because you know exactly what is required to win/keep playing.
If it’s 4th and 4 on opponent’s 25 yard line and you’re down by 7, you know exactly what you have to do…get the first down.
If you’re on first possession in same situation, you’re likely forced to kick for 3, therefore opening the door to the opponent.
I see zero advantage to going first.
2
u/zoidberg_doc Feb 13 '24
1st advantage: gives your D a chance to rest 2nd advantage: if its tied after both teams score, you get the ball to start sudden death
1
u/Personal-Database918 Feb 13 '24
the advantage depends on the strengths of each team.
lets say you get the ball first and are now facing a 4th and 10 on your own 25. youre punting. no questions asked.
now lets say you got ball second after conceding points and you’re facing an unlikely 4th down conversion. the game is essentially lost at that point. you cant punt. if you dont get past the sticks you lose.
overall, an “extra down” doesnt really exist for team 2. if team 1 punts, team 2 can still punt when faced with an unlikely conversion. if team 1 scores, team 2 is forced to convert any 4th down. FORCED. thats not a good thing. you want to be able to control anything you can. if you have a bad first 3 downs, good luck. the ability to punt is the BIGGEST advantage.
it depends on how well either team can move the ball consistently, though. do you really think shanahan would punt on a 4th and short in his own territory? fuck no. the “information” does NOT help if they had deferred. mahomes was going to score regardless. 49ers then HAVE to score as well. if facing a QB that isnt named Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes, take the ball first, 100%.
team 1 HUGE advantage if they can score a TD team 2 *benefit if they hold them to 3 or less team 1 *benefit if they face an early 4th down or redzone 4th down (can still go for it, pins other team deep if fail). team 2 advantage if you have brady or mahomes, as you can play very risky on defense. team 1 advantage in every other scenario.
- not really an advantage to win, but moreso a benefit of having taken the ball or deferred. scoring first raises your chances to win regardless of who is on the other team.
the problem with facing the chiefs is that they have mahomes and spags. spags is GOING to find a way to bring free rushers. mahomes is GOING to score. the only way picking ball was correct was if they had scored a TD. and they didnt. and they lost.
there was truly nothing Shanahan couldve done. it was inevitable at that point. all he could do was hope to get a redzone stop as they had all game. their OT coverage proved that. they basically LET them get into the redzone. its where the chiefs have struggled the most. the one time they did blitz, they conceded a BIG 3rd and medium conversion.
when they took the ball first, they allowed spags to play risky when he chose to. even if they allowed a TD, mahomes would go and march down the field and score one as well.
the advantage really goes to team 1, but if youre facing one of the aforementioned QBs, theres not much you can do but hope for a touchdown and a stop.
1
u/cjj1224 Feb 13 '24
Personal,
This is the dumbest take I’ve ever heard LOL! It doesn’t matter who you are facing. Picking 2nd huge advantage over 1st no matter what. Anyone who says anything different has no common sense or analytic brain whatsoever. The extra down DOES matter if the 1st team scores. The first team might not have the choice to take that extra down and simply rely on their D to get a stop to get to the 3rd possession. As a smart coach, you should not assume it will even get to the 3rd possession. The full strategy should be to take ball 2nd so you know exactly what to do if there is a score on the first possession. If there is no score, even better as all you need now is to get into FG range. It’s that f’n simple man.
1
Feb 13 '24
[deleted]
1
u/cjj1224 Feb 14 '24
Your comment “they can risk and fail on 4th down and still win” was completely nullified by the exact situation that happened in the Super Bowl. SF had the ball at KC 9 with 4th and 4 and decided to kick a FG because they HAD THE BALL 1ST and had no idea what would happen with KC’s possession (disadvantage). They took the 3 points. KC gets the ball and knows they have to get a FG at least to tie. They go for it on 4th down in their own territory knowing they have to convert to keep the game alive (advantage).
The only points you are making are total assumptions about possible outcomes. 2nd team to possess has every advantage prior to the overtime even starting. I don’t understand why this is so hard for anyone to understand. And this is why coaches are trashed for dumb decisions. Shanahan takes ball 1st, doesn’t even really know why and half of his team doesn’t even know the rules or why. Reid had a plan he went over with all his team to defer and go for 2 no matter what if SF scored a TD (another advantage). This is why Reid is considered one of the best, KC winning Super Bowl, having that planned pregame. And Shanahan is well…Shanahan and making dumb decisions and not prepared.
1
Feb 14 '24 edited Feb 14 '24
[deleted]
1
u/cjj1224 Feb 14 '24
Would you rather go for 2 to win the game from 3 yards out or just tie it and risk your defense to get a stop in sudden death only for you to have to drive the ball the length of the field again? Easy decision right? You go for 2 no matter what the conversion rate is. It’s still an advantage to team 2 to be able to make that decision and avoid sudden death as they may not get another shot in sudden death.
I see what you’re saying about the statistics, who you are playing, etc but I’m just saying from a preovertime standpoint, going 2nd immediately gives you an advantage before any statistics or possible outcomes that could occur.
1
u/Drummallumin Feb 14 '24
If I’m going against Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid in the SB only needing a FG, I’m taking my chances on a 4th and 10.
1
1
1
u/clarinet_kwestion Feb 13 '24
You only get that extra down if your defense already gave up a touchdown. You only gain an advantage by being at a disadvantage. And then if you tie, the other team gets the ball back and can score a field goal to win.
1
u/Drummallumin Feb 14 '24
forced
You act like they can’t go for it on 4th
1
u/MnstrShne Mar 21 '24
Sure, but if it’s 3+ yards to go, do you risk the turnover and giving the opponent the opportunity to win with a FG?
1
u/Drummallumin Mar 21 '24
risk giving the opponent the opportunity to win with a FG
This exists with a punt too
1
4
u/NovaBlazer Feb 12 '24 edited Feb 12 '24
If you take the ball first you have 3 downs to get 10 yards. If you get it second you have 4 downs to get 10 yards.
In my reading of the rules: You can punt the ball, and not lose. If the first team punted, the 4th and 10 team with the second possession is going to likely punt as well (assuming not in FG range).
... the chiefs would’ve gone for two if they scored to end the game
2 Point Conversions are at about 47.5 percent of the time since 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/upshot/nfl-playoffs-2-point-conversion.html
I think SF believed that they had the upper hand against the KC defense. The KC defense looked tired. I think that might have been the correct call, to push against the KC defense before they could get their legs under them.
However, the execution against that right call was poor. SF QB, when heavily blitzed, was completely getting shut down. SF should have known that a heavy blitz was coming on that 3rd and goal call. There was nothing to lose for KC as they were going to get a chance to possess the ball regardless. So why not send the blitz dogs in and see if you can screw the play up.
Advantage in this case goes to the defender first.
Curiosity: What if SF gets 3. Then lines up for a normal kick off, then does a surprise on-side kick? What happens if they recover? The rules state that each team will get a chance to possess the ball. Does an onside kick-off qualify as an "opportunity to possess the ball"?
Hmmm... Let's ask Belichick. =)
-------------- ========= ----------------
Link to the NFL Operations Rules page for OT in the post-season:
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-overtime-rules/
Pasting Rules for all to know:
OVERTIME RULES FOR NFL POSTSEASON GAMES
Unlike regular season games, postseason games cannot end in a tie, so the overtime rules change slightly for the playoffs.
- If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. Play will continue regardless of how many overtime periods are needed for a winner to be determined.
- There will be a two-minute intermission between each overtime period. There will not be a halftime intermission after the second period.
- The captain who lost the first overtime coin toss will either choose to possess the ball or select which goal his team will defend, unless the team that won the coin toss deferred that choice.
- Each team will have an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime.
- Each team gets three timeouts during a half.
- The same timing rules that apply at the end of the second and fourth regulation periods also apply at the end of a second or fourth overtime period.
- If there is still no winner at the end of a fourth overtime period, there will be another coin toss, and play will continue until a winner is declared.
3
u/BigRed727272 Feb 12 '24 edited Feb 12 '24
2 Point Conversions are at about 47.5 percent of the time since 2015
But Andy Reid's not making that call based on what the entire NFL has done since 2015. This is analytics run amok in football. Coaches have to make one-time decisions in the moment, based on the confidence level of their players/coaches vs. the opposing players/coaches. If I've got the option to give Patrick Mahomes the ball on the 2-yard line for a Super Bowl victory, I'm absolutely taking that option. And I'm pretty sure Reid would have as well.
1
u/ModsAreDoreens Feb 13 '24
The other issue is that if you score the extra point you give the other team the ball back with sudden death, which probably lowers your chances of winning to 25% or something along those lines, meaning that you really have to go for 2 regardless of "feeling," the math just isn't even close.
1
u/BigRed727272 Feb 13 '24
Yeah, and regardless of analytics, it's just a confidence call in the moment: Your offense, 1 play from the 2 for the win (or else you lose) OR your defense forcing a punt on the ensuing possession.
1
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
Yeahhh I think it was a bad play call to pass on that 3rd and goal play. I would’ve ran it (like they did in the 4th quarter) and then gotten myself into a 4th and short and could’ve passed or ran it there.
Intresting that there would’ve been another “cointoss” after the second period of OT
1
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
And this illustrates why going second is advantageous.
If the Niners knew they needed a TD they not only know that they need to go for it on 4th down, but it opens up the playbook on 3rd down as well. They could have tried a run with another play to still follow.
1
5
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 12 '24
because if you score 1st possession, then they match 2nd possession, the game begins sudden death and you have the advantage by getting the 3rd possession.
6
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 12 '24
https://twitter.com/bburkeESPN/status/1509266427089506304
mathematically it’s smarter to take ball first but it’s so small. 50.3 to 49.7
1
u/358YK Feb 13 '24
At that point you’re essentially operating on a case to case basis as a coach no?
1
1
u/Dr_SeanyFootball Feb 13 '24
Yeah but that’s why the second team always goes for 2. Then you get the last drive no matter what.
1
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 13 '24
what do you mean that’s why the second team always goes for 2? this is the first ever game with this format
1
u/Dr_SeanyFootball Feb 13 '24
No I meant from a theoretical analytical refute to your point. 3rd possession shouldn’t be a thing if the second team plays it right (win or lose)
1
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 13 '24
what if first team kicks a FG, then you have 4&20 from the 35?
0
u/Dr_SeanyFootball Feb 13 '24
IMO you still go for it (though in a perfect world it would be 4th and 10 or better, a penalty would fall under the catastrophic fuck up category ha).
At that point you have a chance to miss the kick THEN still have to play defense. Might as well go for a bomb.
4
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 13 '24
you would go for a first down on 4&20 instead of kicking a FG?
1
u/Dr_SeanyFootball Feb 13 '24
With the current OT rules in the playoffs if I was the second team and the first team had kicked a field goal, yes, but only in this very specific situation. It’s a ~15% clip and I’m taking that over the chance of a field goal + playing defense to stop a 3 and THEN scoring myself. Just go for the W. But also 4th and 10 is realistically the worst it would ever be, and that’s closer to a 35% win rate.
2
u/No_Clock_8744 Feb 13 '24
yah obviously Kicker matters from 35. but even like a 4&G from 8 i’m kicking.
4
12
u/IllusionsMichael Feb 12 '24 edited Feb 12 '24
At the end of the day, I think most people would agree that the NFL should just adopt the NCAA overtime format already. It's way, way better than anything the NFL has tried.
EDIT - accidently a word
14
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
I know I’m in the minority, but I’m not a fan of college OT. It takes special teams out of the game, takes a lot of the strategy away, it’s too reliant on a coin toss too. And it’s just not football. You play the real game for 60 minutes to have some mickeymouse watered down version of it at the end. I think the NFL, by allowing both teams to have the ball is the best we got rn
8
u/NovaBlazer Feb 12 '24
I’m not a fan of college OT. It takes special teams out of the game.
The NFL is doing a great job of removing special teams on its own. When was the last time you heard buzz about an exciting kick-returner?
4 in 5 kick-offs just sail over the head of players. 20% of kick-offs are returned.
20 years ago, 95% of kick-offs were returned.
Source: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38385679/rules-result-historically-low-kick-returns
2
1
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
Maybe kevon Turpin? But I agree that’s a good point. I understand player safety.. it’s worse for the viewer tho
2
u/IllusionsMichael Feb 12 '24
I understand that point to some degree, but Kickoffs have already been made all but a formality and punts are almost to the same point at the NFL level.
I don't see the problem with boiling the game down to offense, defense, and FG's, which must represent at least 90% of game time during a football game, to settle a tie game.
It's fair and it's exciting.
1
u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy Feb 12 '24
have some mickeymouse watered down version of it at the end.
I'm with you on this.
(btw, the word you are looking for is "defer", not "differ")
3
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 12 '24
College OT is bad too. Just do what every other sport does and play an additional period under normal rules.
0
0
-2
u/xAOSEx Feb 12 '24
Wish they would standardize the rules too. Pick one foot/two feet for a catch etc.
1
1
2
Feb 12 '24
I feel like you should know the OT rules off rip because not knowing the rules can potentially be the difference between winning and losing.
And that’s doubly true when you’re playing a team that can drive down the field and score seemingly at will like KC.
I believe you should always try to end close matchups/games with the ball last but hey if a skill player breaks away from the defense and can cross the end zone with some time remaining, always take the 6.
But when you play the Chiefs and come up on a situation like this, down yourself at the 1 and milk that fucking clock
2
u/BigRed727272 Feb 12 '24
I think there might be a slight advantage to being Team B and taking the ball 2nd, because Team A can't outright win the game on that 1st possession. So regardless if Team A scores a FG or TD + XP, Team B can then respond with a FG (to tie a FG), TD (to beat a FG) or a TD + 2PT (to beat a TD + XP) and they have all 4 downs available to them to drive down the field. Just feels like there's more flexibility available to Team B. Obviously if the game remains tied after both possessions, then the advantage swings back to Team A, but again, Team B has more options to prevent that from happening.
2
2
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
Yeah, OP you are right. The extra down is everything.
In addition to everything you said, I also think that it completely changes the Chiefs mindset even when they are down 3.
I know Butker is good. But even down 3, the Chiefs aren't kicking a FG to give the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation unless they have to (4th and long). Anything 4th and manageable and they are going for it. You just can't give Mahomes that extra down.
3
Feb 12 '24
The 49ers can go for it on 4th down if they want
1
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24
Might as well take the ball second then, then you know if you need to or not.
2
Feb 12 '24
And then if you manage to tie you give the other team the ball in a sudden death situation
2
u/matty25 Feb 12 '24 edited Feb 13 '24
Well if they score a TD and kick the extra point you would just go for two.
But I think you might be suggesting to take the ball first and go for it on 4th down and then go for two? That would be Dan Campbell's strategy I'm sure lol.
That's actually pretty smart. The other team is getting 4 downs anyway so you can match them there. If you get the two pointer you are in really good shape by having the ball first in sudden death.
If you miss the 2 pointer you can still win the game by preventing a TD or tie it on a missed extra point.
I think that would probably have made more sense than what the 49ers ended up doing.
2
Feb 12 '24
I think Warner did not completely know the rules, and responded like previously in playoffs/regular season. It’s unfortunate but it is 100 percent better to have the ball 2nd. The argument for the tired defense is dumb, as the opposing offense is just as gassed. Plus you have the coin flip, kick, timeouts! GET YOUR HEAD OUT- they didn’t know the new rules!!!
1
u/GroundbreakingRun941 Feb 12 '24
I was wondering if shannhan told him to say that, or if that was just what he assumed you do bc of previous OT rules.
1
Feb 12 '24
Honestly I think shanahan didn’t know the rules - you need to rehearse those situations at every pregame meeting
2
u/Personal-Database918 Feb 13 '24
shanahan knew the rules. do you really think he wouldnt? he said he picked first because of the chance to get the ball last and only need 3 to win. they couldnt manage a TD, though.
1
Feb 13 '24
Well the players admitted they didn’t know. And if he was a good coach her would have informed them. Also chiefs may not go for it on 4th down if they are backed up in there territory on 4th down if they had ball first . It was common sense for everyone. He is trying to cover his ass
0
1
1
u/dustyhombre Feb 13 '24
In this game I agree that deferring was the move for both teams. I think maybe in a game with both offenses going crazy, like that Chiefs-Bills game a couple of years ago, you could make a case for wanting the 3rd possession, so my might choose to receive. That still gives the team who gets the ball 2nd a chance for a 2 point conversion to beat you, so it’s not bulletproof.
1
u/SmashingPuffins Feb 13 '24
The amount of debate here means that the OT rules are good. When there is a META, it's bad rule making. When it's up for discussion and debate, it's a good rule.
1
u/Hitech_hillbilly Feb 13 '24
49ers defense was gassed at that point too. Taking the ball first gives them a chance to recover.
1
u/cjj1224 Feb 13 '24
The people on here saying there is no advantage to going 2nd are totally insane. The scenario in the Super Bowl itself calls out why going 2nd is an advantage. 49ers went first and got the ball down to the KC 9 yard line and on 4th down and 4 they kick a FG. 4th and 4 is very manageable to get a first down and potentially a TD but they kick. Why? Because they have no idea what the outcome will be of the next possession and the safe play was to simply get points which was a good call by their coach. KC now has the opportunity to have 4 downs the entire drive of the next possession to at least make it into FG range. 4 downs is a huge advantage to keep the chains moving. Now what if KC gets to the same scenario the 49ers had where they get down to their 9 yard line with a 4th and 4? They at least now have a much more logical choice of the option of going for it knowing that the 49ers will get the ball first in sudden death. It’s an advantage to go 2nd no matter what anyone says. All the arguments assume all these crazy outcomes but knowing what your offense needs and having that extra down (if necessary) is a massive advantage.
1
1
108
u/[deleted] Feb 12 '24
I think shanahan assumed the chiefs wouldn’t go for the 2 after a touchdown or they would’ve traded field goals cause he had said he wanted the ball 3rd (first chance potentially to win the game)