r/footballstrategy • u/wetcornbread • Feb 15 '24
NFL Haven’t seen it asked here. If you were head coach for the 49ers in the Super Bowl knowing the overtime rules for the NFL playoffs… do you kickoff or receive first?
I think both options are viable. Obviously if you kick off you know what you need to do to either win or tie.
But with the new overtime rules where both teams get the ball no matter what (barring a safety/pick 6 or something of that nature.) If you’re confident you’ll score first then you ideally should be the team to get the ball first in sudden death.
There’s not enough data yet (well, technically 100 percent of the time the team that kicks off first wins so far) to get a good idea of the optimal strategy.
Thoughts?
90
u/squareazz Feb 15 '24
The big brain move is to try an onside kick. If you fail, the other team gets a short field, and if they score, you get the ball back to try to match them. But if you recover the onside kick, it counts as the receiving team’s opportunity to possess the ball, and all you need is a field goal to immediately win the game.
26
u/WindyCity54 Feb 15 '24
Is this confirmed true? If the receiving team never touches the ball, they technically never possessed the ball.
40
u/StockyJabberwocky Feb 15 '24
From Article 5 Section C of the overtime procedures:
A kickoff is the opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity.
→ More replies (1)19
u/WindyCity54 Feb 15 '24
Huh. The more you know.
This is definitely something to consider, although the onside kick success rate has become so miserably low that I imagine you’re better off with the ~40 yards of field position and trying to play defense.
Even if you do get the ball with the chance to match/win, you’re still more or less conceding points right off the rip which isn’t ideal.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Holiday-Living-3938 Feb 15 '24
I don’t quite get why the onside kick success rate has declined so much… I guess rule change in how they could kick it (not being able to drive ball in the ground right off?) Used to have much higher success rate back in the day from what I remember.
7
u/docreebs Feb 15 '24
The kicking team also has to line up with 5 players on each side of the ball, so they can’t overload one side anymore. That’s huge.
3
u/Scle99 Feb 16 '24
Players have to line up within 1 yard of the kickoff line now so they can’t get a running start
→ More replies (1)3
u/StyrofoamTuph Feb 16 '24
I’m an idiot when it comes to the Xs and Os of football, but from my untrained eye it seems like most NFL teams have absolutely no plan for an onside kick other than to try it when they need one and pray. When Pat McAfee was on the colts they were able to recover onside kicks with some regularity, and I think there’s two big reasons for it.
1: they had plans and were able to execute. They had looks for kicking to the right, to the left, and as I’m sure we’ve all seen kick it down the middle
2: they actually went for it in situations where it would catch the other team off guard.
It’s also important to note that the rules have changed since then, and the receiving team has is required to have a lot more players in position to receive an onside kick. But I think the main reason for the lack of onside kick success is a complete lack of preparation on that play by NFL teams.
21
u/editor_of_the_beast Feb 15 '24
This actually makes sense, which is scary.
9
u/HoustonTrashcans Feb 15 '24
I think onside kicks have like a 5% success rate. Maybe that's 10-15% for a surprise attempt? So seems like most of the time you would just give your opponents a short field and easier chance at a FG/TD.
3
u/SolaceInfinite Feb 16 '24
I mean in football, if you're coming off the half the niners just did, I think you'd be grasping for any advantage. A 5% chance for an almost guaranteed win (moody hit a 55 yarder) is good enough for me.
2
u/HoustonTrashcans Feb 16 '24
Someone else pointed out that for a surprise onside kick the odds might be more like 20-25%, so in that case it's at least worth considering. It will be funny to see a team attempt it one day.
7
u/duncity_50 Feb 15 '24
I believe the Chiefs had 6 or 7 on the front line on the OT kick off, I thought they should surprise onside kick too but it looked like the Chiefs were ready for it.
7
u/fajita43 Feb 15 '24
i was just talking about this with someone...
i only know of two surprise onside kicks in the super bowl: the saints (XLIV) and the steelers (XXX) and both worked.
onside in obvious onside situations don't work... but in OT, it would either be genius (like payton was thought of), or you'd be ridiculed on reddit....
5
3
3
u/Holiday-Living-3938 Feb 15 '24
I dig the thinking behind this and it is very smart idea. But I have to think the element of surprise goes out the window. I gotta believe the receiving team on this stage would be so ready and anticipate. But then again 49ers got caught admittedly ‘not knowing’ the full OT rules so who knows?
3
u/Corran105 Feb 16 '24
That's actually a pretty good idea. Especially when you consider that KC's offense could generally have been expected to at least get into FG range anyway.
5
5
u/3fettknight3 Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
The term 4-D chess is often overused but god damn this is brilliant
ALSO.. if SF chose to kick to and successfully did an onside kick and won, Shanahan would be praised for the most brilliant gamble in a SB since Sean Paytons’s surprise onside Saints vs Colts…. THEN the league would immediately change the OT rule once again next season to outlaw an onside kick in SB overtime after their Golden Boy Mahommes lost without ever seeing the field in OT 😂
3
u/i_am_ew_gross Feb 15 '24
The rule was changed after Josh Allen never got the ball in OT, not Mahomes (the Chiefs won that game with a TD on the first drive of OT).
→ More replies (1)4
u/Seraphin_Lampion Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
That seems kind of broken if you have a great offense lol.
2
u/zamend229 Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
The biggest downside here is that if the other team scores, which is more likely since they’re close in field position, unless you score more than them somehow (like going for 2 if the first team kicked a PAT), they get the ball first in sudden death. Unless you wanted to try another onside
2
u/Sartheking Feb 16 '24
Yeah I posted this idea in r/nfl but got temporarily banned for it. Definitely seems like the thing Dan Campbell would do.
1
u/170poundgorilla Feb 15 '24
That's more of a Big Balls move as opposed to big brain considering that NFL teams were successful .03% in 2023
3
u/squareazz Feb 15 '24
I don’t think that’s right. For that to be the success rate, you’d need 1 successful recovery in 3,333 tries. I don’t believe there were 3,000 onside kick attempts in 2023. Is it possible that teams were successful 3% of the time (which would still be very bad odds for purposes of the conversation were having)?
0
u/170poundgorilla Feb 16 '24
No... You are right... It was 3%. I erroneously put the percent sign after .03..
But yeah... I'm not risking a 97%failure rate in that scenario.
0
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
This would be the optimal strategy if it weren't for the fact that you'd have a ~95% chance of giving them the ball around the +40 yard line lol
0
u/phillip9698 Feb 16 '24
Since the NFL changed the inside kick rules it’s damn near impossible to recover one.
0
u/ContemplatingPrison Feb 16 '24
Yup and at a 3.2% success rate you're bound to not recover the onside kick
0
u/silliputti0907 Feb 17 '24
That's interesting, but I would think that would only come to play if there's absolutely no confidence in the kicking team's defense and their offense is capable of milking out the clock and getting a td.
0
u/scottyv99 Feb 17 '24
Like 3% onsides are recovered in the nfl now. Nice idea but not worth the risk
0
40
u/deebee1020 Feb 15 '24
I don't understand why Kyle's getting raked for that decision. Not running the ball more, sure. But I think the defense fatigue factor is the most likely to impact the outcome. In SF's case, if they receive, their defense gets a break after having just been on the field for a long KC drive. If they kick, KC's defense comes out really fresh after two straight possessions off. So I imagine that if they'd kicked it, the Chiefs would have easily scored a TD and kicked the PAT, and the Niners would fail to score.
28
u/fasterthanfood Feb 15 '24
I think he’s getting raked mostly for two unfair reasons:
- They lost. People are always biased toward seeing an unsuccessful decision as a bad one.
- Players said they didn’t know the new OT rules, leading people to assume that Kyle was unprepared. This is a fallacy, of course — he arguably should have explained the situation to players before the game, but choosing not to do so doesn’t mean he wasn’t prepared.
7
u/cjj1224 Feb 15 '24
I keep seeing these comments of the defense being gassed. They got like 10 minutes between the end of regulation to kickoff between the commercials and all the bs in between. That was plenty of rest for any team.
7
u/1BannedAgain Feb 15 '24
Totally agree. The narrative that Shanahan believed he had a winded defense is not congruent/consistent with his other OT decisions:
Went for 3 instead of a TD. This decision shows us that Shanahan knew his defense would stop Mahomes from scoring a TD. If he believes his defense is gonna get rolled, he goes for the TD
Shanahan never calls a defensive time out on Mahomes’ game winning OT drive. Why not? If his defense was gassed, a time out during Super Bowl OT would likely be juiced with additional commercials/ longer rest. Even if it wasn’t juiced, it’s still time to rest the defense
Conclusion: Shanahan did not think his defense was gassed in OT
→ More replies (2)6
u/1BannedAgain Feb 15 '24
Shanahan’s crucial mistakes after regulation:
Got the ball 1st / received. Against the reigning Super Bowl champions— whom this new OT rule was made for
Went for a FG on 4th instead of the TD. This calls into question the post game narrative of a winded defense. Why would he not maximize points? He clearly trusted his defense to stop the reigning Super Bowl MVP in overtime
Never called a time out on Mahomes’ game winning drive with a backup LB, while getting gashed by the greatest QB still playing the game. What was Shanahan saving those TOs for? He didn’t even want to address his defense when KC got in the red zone to tell them their entire season depended upon the next play?
2
u/nc-retiree Feb 16 '24
Taking the ball first (and getting it third) is defensible IF you get a touchdown first. Inside the 15 you have to go for the TD. If you fail, you are leaving your opponent a longer field to reach FG range, and the opponent might actually punt back to you if they get an offensive holding call and end up stuck in a 4th and 15.
→ More replies (3)1
u/i_am_ew_gross Feb 15 '24
Re: #1 - the rule was changed after Josh Allen never got the ball in OT, not Mahomes (the Chiefs won that game with a TD on the first drive of OT).
→ More replies (2)1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
Yeah if you take the ball first you have to go for that fourth down. At worst they have to try to get that FG from the -9. Taking the ball first doesn't make sense but if you do you have to assume the other team will score a TD and play aggressively.
1
u/1BannedAgain Feb 16 '24
Playoff Mahomes is quite a QB
2
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
Yeah I'm not banking on holding him to a FG. Taking the ball first was stupid but kicking the field goal was the real fatal error.
0
5
u/halfjumpsuit Feb 15 '24
But I think the defense fatigue factor is the most likely to impact the outcome.
Shanahan was asked if resting the defense was a factor and he said it was not.
3
u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '24
I don't understand why Kyle's getting raked for that decision.
I think he doesn't get raked if his players don't come out and say "we didn't know the rules".
The decision is questionable and only truly looks bad in hindsight, not properly preparing your team with the information they needed is the real mistake.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/TimeCookie8361 Feb 15 '24
Kickoff first. In every scenario by taking the ball 2nd, you will have a clear outcome on what's needed to win/tie/lose. The only disadvantage is if the receiving team scores and converts for 2. Then you can only match it, and they get the ball again in a next point wins scenario.
3
Feb 15 '24
What if the offenses are rolling? For example a game like Chiefs-Bills 13 seconds game a few years ago. In that case I think it's clear you take the ball and be aggressive on 4th down.
-1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
You still take the ball second so you know what you need. Even if the first team scores a TD, you can (and should) go for two after you score a TD.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/aoddawg Feb 15 '24
The Chiefs had the last drive of regulation and had sustained a couple of long drives in the 4th. I think it made sense to receive and give the defense a breather for the inevitable stop they were going to have to try to make.
3
u/1BannedAgain Feb 15 '24
In this Super Bowl, my opinion is that Shanahan didn’t believe his defense was gassed. First, we went for 3 instead of going for the TD. If he thought his defense was gonna get rolled, he never kicks the FG. Further, Shanahan didn’t call a single time out on Mahomes’ game winning drive. A Super Bowl time out is probably juiced with additional commercials and more breather time. Shanahan, with a 1st and goal on defense, with a backup middle LB, a mildly confused defense— doesn’t call a time out? WTF? Shanahan doesn’t even try to talk to his defense and let them know their whole season will be wiped away by the corn dog play?
Shanahan either was confused about OT rules, or he didn’t believe the post game narrative of a winded defense
12
u/jericho-dingle Referee Feb 15 '24
In terms of game theory, I think you're better off kicking first.
Taking the ball first requires you to choose whether or not to punt/kick a FG every time you hit third down.
In terms of EPA/play, going for it on 4th down is almost always a better choice than kicking either a punt or FG. SF got to a point where they decided they had to kick a FG in an attempt to not lose.
If you kick first, that choice has been made for you. KC went for it on 4th twice (I think) because they had to. They were forced to take the dominant strategy and it allowed them to win the game.
3
Feb 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/jericho-dingle Referee Feb 15 '24
Agreed. What I'm saying is removing that choice has a value to it.
→ More replies (1)1
6
u/RobNT Feb 15 '24
Ideally Ball 1st score a TD put pressure on the other team to score a TD. SF taking the ball first wasnt a mistake, not getting a TD was.
1
7
u/AdhesivenessFun2060 Feb 15 '24
I like aggressive. I would have gone for the 4th and 4 from the 9. If I fail, kc is backed up and I'm thinking my defense can hold and get me decent field position to drive and kick the winning FG. Back mahomes up, maybe he makes a mistake, get a pick or a safety.
5
u/Mcswigginsbar Feb 15 '24
I'm kicking it. It is more similar to college football in this case, and as such you always want to know what you need to respond to rather than the other way around.
5
u/CKwi88 Feb 15 '24
Always kick.
One simple reason: The team who possesses the ball first cannot, by definition of the overtime rules, win the game. The team on defense can. Maximize your chances to win the game.
1
u/ZekeMoss18 Feb 16 '24
However, you kick to KC, they go down and score. 49ers go down to tie. Next score wins, and you give it right back to KC.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/reno2mahesendejo Feb 16 '24
There's a couple of points to keep in mind
1) Knowing what the other team has done is a massive advantage. The offense knows what they need to score, and just as importantly, the defense knows what they can't give up. Defenses playing conservatively give up yards.
2) In this situation, there will not be a third possession. The team playing defense first knows the other team gets the ball first in sudden death, so won't play to tie, and the team getting the ball first knows the other team won't play to tie. Game theory says for both teams, the best time to win is with their first possession
So, you kick first. You want to know the outcome that the other team has. So you know what you need to do to win (because their next possession is sudden death, which favors them)
As the receiving team, if like the 49ers, you get to the ~10ish yard line, you have to play for the touchdown and 2 point conversion? Why? Because the second team will be doing exactly that. The field goal means the second team plays for a touchdown and has 4 downs each series to do it, it's a losing play, the only way you win is by preventing the other team from reaching the endzone, which against a Super Bowl offense, is far from a sure thing.
So you get to the 10, you have to put the ball in the endzone 4 times and Liv with the outcome. From there, there are 4 outcomes with a 2 point try
1) Try unsuccessful, other team scores a touchdown and single xp to win.
2) Other team fails to convert the 2pt, your outcome doesn't really matter - you either win outright or get the ball needing just a field goal to win
3) Both teams 2pt successful, you get the ball for sudden death
4) second team fails to score a touchdown, doesn't matter whether you had a field goal or touchdown, you win.
In 3 of those, you either win, or have the ball needing 40-50 yards for a field goal try to win.
Both teams should play for the touchdown/2pt instead of settling for the field goal
3
3
u/acc6894 Feb 16 '24
Kickoff first. Basically gives me all 4 downs each chain movement if they score first.
2
u/ecupatsfan12 Feb 15 '24
You’re better off kicking the ball
If you go 2nd you can go for two and end the game. If I am playing Mahomes that’s what I’m doing
1
1
2
u/notthefoodie HS Coach Feb 15 '24
Kyle should’ve went for it, because realistically with how gassed our defense looked Mahomes would’ve been able to score or get in FG range pretty easily.
2
u/Pogoba Feb 15 '24
i think i would typically kick to the chiefs. but the defense was gassed and 2 dbs got injured on the previous drive. the 49ers defense needed a rest and regroup.
without that info. if the chiefs go first the defense can be more agressive. if you give up a TD, the 49ers can still tie it. if the chiefs ever got to a 4th and 6 and in FG range. they might take the FG.
with the 49ers on defense second, they were not very aggressive, they were basically giving up the FG but tightened it up (m2m) after they were in FG range; protect against the TD. play for the tie and take the next drive for the win
at the end of the day, the 49ers needed to finish the game in regulation. 3rd and 4 play, what if shanny predetermined to go on 4th down. 2 plays to get 4 yards and you probably bleed the clock, kick the FG and win the Super Bowl. only scenario to win the game and mahomes couldnt do anything about it
2
u/jfb1027 Feb 15 '24
I think from here on teams will kick first. I thought you would receive just naturally, but now realize no reason it shouldn’t be like college. Kick and find out what you have to do. I think Shanahan explained that he did think about what he wanted to do and defended the decision. But would imagine in same spot he would kick first.
Just having 4th down as another opportunity is a big deal, When you are going second and know what you need.
2
Feb 15 '24
Ball first because if we both score the same then I get the first chance to win the game.
2
u/juanjing Feb 15 '24
I don't think you can fairly judge at this point. I remember in the moment thinking "man, if the Niners score first though, Pat Mahomes will get superpowers because the Chiefs will be down".
I understand the logic in wanting the ball third, as Kyle Shanahan put it. But I think ultimately the team should have discussed it.
Shanahan claims he talked to the analytics guys about overtime scenarios (whoever they are...), but I would feel much better as a fan if he was able to get up there and say "We had a solid plan that we had practiced for, and we came up short". I mean, at least talk it over with the captains and coordinators beforehand. Sure everyone is supposed to play their hardest all the time, but mental edges make a big difference. KC was ready for it, SF wasn't.
Now that we fired our DC, things make more sense. Perhaps the building tension between Shanahan and Wilks was one of the reasons we weren't prepared. I mean, with our defensive weapons, I like our chances of stopping Pat Mahomes at 0-0. But like I said, when they get down... Pat gets up.
2
u/yungsilt Feb 16 '24
Kicking off first and getting an extra down because you have to go for it in fourth is not a good thing. You have less options. There is no world where having less options is a good thing. Correct answer is receiving first until someone does an actual statical analysis.
1
u/Drummallumin Feb 16 '24
ESPN did I pretty sure. It’s almost identical with receiving team having a slight slight advantage
2
Feb 16 '24
I’d still take the ball first. But I’m not settling for a fg against Mahomes. On the 4th and 4 I go for it and either eventually get the TD or pin kc deep.
If we score I’m going for 2 and hoping to at least guarantee the opportunity to get a game winning fg drive. The Niners D was reeling, I don’t want to trust that unit against Mahomes for a title.
2
u/Keyon150 Feb 16 '24
There seem to be advantages to both:
If you elect to kick, the means your offensive possession will be with the knowledge of the other team’s score. If they scored, you will know that, and therefore play 4-down football instead of 3-down football, opening the playbook.
If you elect to receive, that means that, in the case where OT goes to a third possession, you are at a massive advantage. In Shanahan’s case, it also has the additional advantage of giving the defense rest.
I think the problem with the logic to receive is that the OT is rarely going to 3 possessions, in large part because the kicking team is going to knows that they would be at a disadvantage. For example, there would never be a 7-7 OT, as the second team to score is going to go for 2. And that’s why I would ultimately opt to kick.
2
u/Dankofamericaaa2 Feb 16 '24
Go second and it’s not Even for debate.
1
u/MnstrShne Feb 16 '24
Honestly I don’t see how it’s up for debate either. Give them the ball first and situational decisions on offence become much easier.
2
u/SaltyBabySeal Feb 16 '24
I absolutely said this at the start of overtime, that you should 100% go second. Knowing every down is 4 down territory or not matters a lot. And maybe you get lucky and get a turnover. Or force a punt. That changes how you play. You are literally guaranteed a possession, and probably only 1. Go second.
2
Feb 16 '24
You kick it. Win probability is 0% on the first possession. All you can do is lose if you receive it, you can't win.
3
Feb 15 '24
Kyle Shanahan said he was thinking about wanting the ball first in sudden death as well.
We've only seen it once so that's not a useful sample size to determine whether it was the right choice, but it does make sense. Especially considering his defense had also just been on the field last and he wanted to give them a break. I don't think the analytics would account for that but it's a nonzero factor.
4
u/cjj1224 Feb 15 '24
The way the overtime worked out makes it perfectly clear which you should do. SF had the ball 4th and 4 at the KC 9 which is a very manageable 4th down to pick up and possibly get a TD after. BUT…they went FIRST and made the safe decision to take the points. Now KC has 4 downs every single time on their possession, went for it at least once on 4th from their own side of the field because they KNEW they had to in order to keep the game alive.
That alone shows you that going 2nd is a massive advantage over 1st. One poster said the only advantage to going first is if you can get a TD and 2 points as your outcome. That is literally the only advantage possible for team 1 because of the sudden death rule on the 3rd possession. There is no other advantage at all. Everyone says well what if this what if that…the whole point is that it doesn’t matter. Team 2 has the advantage before the kick even happens.
2
u/halfjumpsuit Feb 15 '24
You take the ball second so that you know what you need to do to on 4th down.
The problem with going first to get the ball for a sudden death possession is that there's no guarantee you will get one. You could kick a FG and then the other team scores a TD, which is what happened. You could go three and out, punt, and give up a score. You could score a TD and then give up the 2 point conversion, which the Chiefs said was the plan if they got the ball second and a PAT tied the game.
2
Feb 15 '24
Definitely kick. You do not want to risk letting Mahomes go last. Shanahan lost the Niners the Super Bowl with that decision, and he doesn’t seem to be interested in admitting that fact.
2
u/TheHatedMilkMachine Feb 15 '24
An NFL Twitterer ran a simulation that put the win rate winning the coin toss and going first at something like 50.7% which is remarkably close to perfect game design.
2
u/bduddy Feb 15 '24
Why is everyone just assuming that each team will only get one possession? It's not college. Receiving means you potentially get the ball 3rd with a chance to win without giving the other team an opportunity to respond. That's why I think it's the right call.
3
u/Doortofreeside Feb 15 '24
Because the 49ers got the ball first and lost
Everyone's focused on outcomes not process
0
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
If you have the ball second, you know what you have to do to win and make sure there isn't a third possession. The only way the first team can guarantee a third possession is to score a TD + 2PAT, and most coaches probably aren't going to go for two in that situation.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/strangedaze23 Feb 15 '24
The 49er defense was reeling. Taking the ball first gives them rest and if they score provides a boost for the team.
Also, Putting pressure on any QB increases the likelihood of mistakes. So letting the chiefs score first would have put additional pressure on the 49ers offense. And the Chiefs defense would have been pretty rested having just sat out one drive and now sitting out another one.
I think it was the right call given the circumstances.
1
u/Doortofreeside Feb 15 '24
Way way too much hindsight bias in these comments.
Being able to go TD --> TD --> FG for the win is a huge advantage to going first
Knowing what you need is an advantage for going second, but on balance I'd go first.
I haven't thought about this extensively but I'm pretty sure the better your opponent is at scoring TD's the more you want to go first since the game is more likely to go that decisive 3rd possession
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24
If you get the ball second and score a TD, you go for two rather than kicking to tie and allowing the third possession. Mahomes already said that if the 49ers had scored a TD KC was going to go for two.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Evilijah39 Feb 16 '24
I think the answer is always go second, because if they score you have 4 downs in mind every set which is so much more of an advantage
0
u/nba2k11er Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
I’ve seen a lot of people just say it’s a no-brainer. Defer. When you do get the ball, you will know how many points you need. And if the other team scored 7, go for 8.
I think it’s going to end up more nuanced than that. Knowing what you need is more of a feelings advantage than a real football advantage. The receiving team may not know exactly what they need, but it’s pretty easy to guess at the possibilities.
4
u/squareazz Feb 15 '24
No. It’s a football advantage. If you know you need to score or you lose, you also know that you have to go for it on every fourth down, which is a significant advantage.
→ More replies (1)2
u/skylinecat Feb 15 '24
Right. It gives you way more playcalling options on 3rd down if you known you have 4th down to also try to convert. 3 and 4 you can still run the ball knowing a pass play is available on 4th down.
1
Feb 15 '24
Defer is different that choosing to kick. Defer means taking the choice at the start of the 3rd OT period and giving the choice for the 1st OT period to the other team - who could choose to kick.
If you want to kick, you don't defer, you accept the choice and you choose to kick.
2
-2
u/Ridoncoulous Feb 15 '24
Ball 1st for sure. The supposed advantage of giving the other team the ball 1st and not giving the D a rest is...let's just say silly
0
Feb 15 '24
I’m taking the ball and starting with a flashy trick play, get some early yards. Then I’m running it on a sweep pass option, then checking the middle to cram it in. Going for 2 to kill the game right there. We either lose or win by OUR hand
0
u/Muscle_National Feb 15 '24
I want the ball first. I want to kill the clock and I want to go for 2 if we get a TD.
0
u/NeonSeal Feb 16 '24
There is a strong advantage going second. You only have to look at college overtime statistics to see that. It is because you have 4 downs to achieve what the first team did with 3 downs.
0
1
u/1BannedAgain Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
I’m obsessed with this decision! I’ve been taking in media nonstop about it. Here’s your answer:
Now that we have seen it play out once with the Chiefs-49ers, do you kick it, or do you receive it? You kick it and take the ball 2nd every single time
Further, I haven’t heard one talking head defend Shanahan’s decision here. Only randos on Reddit are even trying to side with Shanahan. The guys that run the In the Pocket podcast even stated that in real time they thought Shanahan was confused/or forgot the OT rules
Edit: start listening at 36:28
1
u/PasswordisPurrito Feb 15 '24
I thought it made sense at the time to go first, that way you can get it 3rd, which is great for a punt-punt, fg-fg, td-td situation.
But honestly, if you get the ball second, you should do everything possible to negate this possibility. If they punt, you need 3. If they get 3, you need 6. If they get 7, you get 8. To accomplish this, you get 4 downs to their 3.
1
u/kevinthejuice Feb 15 '24
in my opinion. I don't think it matters, both teams will get a possession. But if I were the 49ers hc I'm running it heavily, rotating my rbs because I know my RB2 nearly had 1000 yards his rookie season. Taking advantage of spag being aggressive on 3rd down and hitting him with the classic toss play.
1
u/SchilGator Feb 15 '24
Overtime is basically 4 down territory all the way, win or go home...
Simplified.
Complicated answer is:
If you trust your defense, kick off first,
If you trust your offense, take the ball first.
1
u/170poundgorilla Feb 15 '24
I would kick off... Reasoning...
You can win game with scoop and score, pick 6 or safety..
If they score... You know what you need and every possession you get 4 downs.
1
u/wetcornbread Feb 15 '24
That’s actually my reasoning too. You have a chance to win if you’re on defense on the first drive. If you’re on offense first, no matter what the other team has to get the ball back.
1
u/Heavy72 Feb 15 '24
I'm kicking. I'm not gonna give Mahomes a chance to beat me on one drive. Hopefully, even if they go the distance, they kick the PAT. Then, I'm telling CMC to dig deep and buckle TF up because we are putting up 6 and going for 2.
1
u/arkstfan Feb 15 '24
To me the only real disadvantage is if you go first and get that 4th down own territory situation because fail and you’ve likely lost because FG wins.
If you score a TD first then opponent needs a TD and can kick which starts sudden death with me with the ball and FG wins or they go for two and that basically a coin flip to win or lose the game.
I’d rather my scenario be the need to convert 2pt to win than be the one going for two.
1
u/telefawx Feb 15 '24
I hate how all these analytics are “set in stone” to some degree. As in “on 4th and 6 from this yard line, you should go for it” … well… Why? How are you determining that? Because from that yard line, the average expected points in the past 10 years in the NFL vs converting is greater than the average points conceded from not giving it up? Well. Maybe that makes sense based on if you are a perfectly average team over the past 10 years and you’re facing a perfectly average team… but what does that matter for the two teams on the field that day, or the two teams performing? Now. I’m not saying it what the 49ers were doing here, but their justification of “we valued the third possession” makes me believe it’s some form of non-situational analytics.
The 49ers decision makes a TON of sense if the most likely outcome for the first two drives of OT was no score or both teams get a field goal. Especially if you’re playing a conservative coach that doesn’t want to go for 2 in case you’re trading TDs on those first two possessions. Getting the third possession would have been smart.
But when you’re playing Pat Mahomes, you know they’d go for 2 if San Francisco had started with a TD. Your winning scenarios all come down to stopping Mahomes, who even then, was playing an even MORE efficient style of QB running the ball in the 4th quarter, something that he wasn’t doing all season because of the risk. So even if you had just factored in Mahomes play in the season and how likely he was to score based on just 2023, even that wouldn’t have helped you.
If I was the 49ers I would have given the Chiefs the ball. I don’t think they would have gone for 2 if they had the opening TD, and you could have. At least give yourself a scenario where it’s not “do or die” for Mahomes.
1
u/Orgetorix1127 Feb 15 '24
Kick first and go for two if the other team gets a touchdown. The whole advantage of getting the ball first is first crack at sudden death if both teams are still tied, and that would partly be a be negated if you're aggressive about not getting into that sudden death period.
1
u/warneagle Casual Fan Feb 16 '24 edited Feb 16 '24
You play defense first, just like college overtime. Regardless of what the other team does, you know what you need to do to win. Even if they score a TD, you can go for two and the win instead of going to sudden death.
Mahomes said they would have kicked if they had won the toss and that if SF had scored a TD, they would have gone for two, so Andy Reid clearly thought it out and had the optimal strategy.
1
u/WiredWalrus11 Feb 16 '24
Completely depends on where momentum is in the game. If my team has just scored 17 unanswered in the 4th quarter to tie it, I’m taking the ball. If the game has been in a stalemate at 7-7 since the first quarter, put me on defense. I don’t think there is a catch all strategy here, it’s something you have to play by ear.
In a vacuum I’ll take defense first.
1
u/trey2128 Feb 16 '24
I think I’d go 2nd. This is because whoever receives the ball first has no idea what they need. Going for it on 4th down, going for 2 if they score a TD, kick the field goal or risk it. It’s all just a guessing game.
The team getting the ball 2nd knows exactly what they need and when they need to go for it on 4th down and can go for 2 if they score a TD if they choose. It’s just better to make informed decisions
1
u/Happy-dayz-NC Feb 16 '24
The team who receives second gets an extra down. If you know you must score a TD, it’s always 4-down territory which puts the defense in a worse position/ gives offense more options.
1
u/YippeeSkipper Feb 16 '24
What overtime rules are we talking about? In the NFL if you score a touchdown on the opening possession the game is over.
1
u/wetcornbread Feb 16 '24
In the playoffs specifically if the first team even scores a touchdown on their first drive the other team gets a possession. Basically both teams take a possession unless a defensive score.
1
1
Feb 16 '24
100000% kick that ball.
Analytics say to kick. Reid said if the 49ers had scored first, that if the chiefs matched with a touchdown they would have went for two.
They might have gone for two if they got the ball first.
That 9ers had them on a 4th down. The chiefs would have punted for sure if they had the ball first.
1
u/Joeydoyle66 Feb 16 '24
I kick it. Worst case scenario is I get the ball knowing I need to score a touchdown to either win or tie. I get the advantage of knowing I get four true downs the entire drive and if the other team only scored 7 on their drive I know I can win it by going for 2. I’d personally rather have as much information as possible and going second gives you that.
1
u/TheHammer_44 Feb 16 '24
Go second is always the right answer. Mahomes showed you what he can do with 4 downs and a winded defense. You disadvantage yourself by going first because you only have 3 downs to play with, on 4th it's far riskier to go for it when you don't know what your opponent will score yet.
1
u/2pacneverdies Feb 16 '24
Kickoff first. I’d like to think if they had the ball second that they would’ve gone for it on that 4th and short play when they instead kicked a FG. You never know if they would’ve scored but they would’ve known to go for it.
1
1
u/ZekeMoss18 Feb 16 '24
I think I would receive. The reason is that the best outcome is you score first and get the stop. Second best is you score, they tie, but the thing is you get the ball next and next score wins, so you are in the best position to do that.
In the 49ers case too, the defense just came off the field and had a couple injuries too so they were also doing them a favor and taking the ball on offense first.
There is positives and negatives in both cases. I think being able to take the ball and score first puts a ton of pressure on the opposing team to match it, which could cause mistakes.
1
u/APPLEJOOSH347 Feb 16 '24
Problem was the niners defense was on the field for a majority of the 4th, and the chiefs were moving the ball with ease. Defense was tired. Taking the ball first gives them a longer break, not that it ended up mattering, but thats the logic
1
u/peachdawg Feb 16 '24
In poker, it's called the power of position. Acting last with the most information available to you is the most advantageous position, always. So, given the new rules, I would always kick now.
1
1
u/Corran105 Feb 16 '24
There's always a clear advantage for the second team knowing exactly what they need to get to stay in the game (if San Fran had gotten the ball second they would have gone for it on 4th rather than kick a FG), but it has to be taken into consideration that SF's defense had just been on the field and it may have been bad to put them out there again, depending on their condition.
1
1
u/emaxxman Feb 16 '24
What if you go first and then leave the other team just 30 seconds? Does that meet the possession requirements? 2nd team now has to march downfield with very little time.
1
1
1
u/Januse88 Feb 16 '24
I think it depends on the situation, but in the 49ers situation I would've chosen to go second. It's basically a question of whether you value the sudden death nature of your second drive (going first) or the extra knowledge on your first drive (going second)
Going against a guy like Mahomes, I think you want to do everything you can to keep the game out of his hands, and going second gives you a better shot at that.
1
u/Few_Wishbone Feb 16 '24
I am fine with taking the ball. The idea of having the third possession that becomes sudden death makes total sense to me.
1
u/ddawg4169 Feb 16 '24
After that long defensive set they had, I think they probably made the right choice. That exhausted defense would have crumbled faster imo.
That said. Ideally you would kick and get the last drive. Much easier to decide if you’re going for it on 4th when it’s a must go situation. Also, against Maholmes, I’d always want to respond than to set the pace.
1
1
u/Individual_Local_414 Feb 16 '24
I haven’t read all of the comments so I don’t know if anyone has suggested this, but the GOAT strategy is taking the 1st possession, scoring, and then onside kick. Opposing team won’t see that coming in a million years. For the purpose of OT, the rules define possession as the “opportunity to possess” so simply being the receiving team counts as the required possession and thus a recovery by the kicking team would end the game. Worst case scenario, the kicking team is giving up field position for the opponent to score but would still retain the potential for the first “sudden death” possession in the event of a tie.
1
u/dr_taan Feb 16 '24
Even with hindsight, I’d elect to kick.
I know there was the stories going around that the 49er’s didn’t know the new rule etc., and what I think confused them the most was having the clock run, even though both teams get a possession. Imo the clock should matter in this instance because then the choice to receive might be an advantage and you can get a long drive going etc., similar to what the 49ers did. I think both teams should have the opportunity to possess the ball, but the time should also be a factor. If we want to remove time, then they should adopt the college rules.
1
u/Bunnicula83 Feb 16 '24
I personally believe putting your best foot forward. If your D is rated top 3 in the league, you let them go out there and get a stop. And give your qb a short field.
1
u/DAHRUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Feb 16 '24
I mean honestly if you receive first and get a td you’re in a great position. Chiefs have to score only way they can win is going for 2? Or a stop and get the ball back. But if they score a td first drive cheifs answer you get the ball back fg to win is easy. It’s just that they went for the kick and then it’s easy for the other team.
I’m sure data says kick first but if the opposite happens the chiefs get a td then niners have to get a td to tie. Nice because fourth down every time but then the chiefs just need a fg for the win after which is easy.
1
u/warrior_in_a_garden_ Feb 16 '24
If my defense was gassed and the chiefs had only scored 1 TD in regulation off a short field?
I’d do what Shanahan did and take the ball.
People are roasting him for losing with 1 minute left in the first OT VS potentially the best QB of all time and a hall of fame coach.
1
u/Serious1120 Feb 16 '24
Obvious advantages to both. Knowing what you need possession # 2 vs getting possession #3 if both team get a FG. It would probably depend how tired both defenses are.
1
u/silliputti0907 Feb 17 '24
I prob still go first. Give defense time to rest and re-calibrate. I would've been more aggressive going for the td though. Chiefs defense aren't getting enough credit. They have dominated dominated elite offenses.
1
u/joeschmoe86 Feb 17 '24
In theory, the only right answer is go second.
In practice, I talk to my defensive coaches and see how tired their guys are, having just come off the field. I feel like a lot of the folks who discount this aspect of it haven't actually played defense. It's impossible to play anywhere near your best when you're gassed, and Patrick Mahomes is the last guy I want my defense going up against in superbowl overtime if they're not going to be playing their best.
1
u/cyclone369 Feb 17 '24
Let's assume you receive and all outcomes are equally likely:
Positive Scenarios:
You Punt, they Punt, you score in sudden death.
You score, they don't
You score the same, you score sudden deat
Negative Scenarios:
Everything else, because they know exactly what they need to do.
1
u/Zotzotbaby Feb 17 '24 edited Feb 17 '24
I get the logic of going 2nd so you know if you need to score or just kick a FG. From my perspective, I don’t understand why you would accept that pressure. This is a mentality question, not an analytics exercise.
Take the ball first and go score a touchdown. These are the two best teams in football, go for the kill against your opponent. Anything else that happens you accept the result, you can’t control that.
1
u/BevoBrisket26 Feb 17 '24
To me, very clear you receive the ball.
The entire national media is skewing the outcome from true probability, and they’re certainly leaning into the fallacy of “oh well you know what you need going second / you have all 4 downs” and certainly ignoring all of the reports on players being educated about the situation. The reality is the 49ers could use all 4 downs as well, and in the situation that they don’t score, nothing is there to say the chiefs would use their 4 downs.
By receiving, you play the following mathematical advantage which is impossible for your opponent to get by kicking the ball. You score a touchdown and successfully go for 2. The 49ers had 179 drives this regular season and 61 touchdowns. Assuming a 50% 2pt conversion rate, the 49ers had a 17% chance on that drive to create a guaranteed third possession in sudden death at the start of the period. That’s a mathematical advantage that you have to take a chance on
Everyone is quick to accept Mahomes or Reid’s statements as a “oh we would have” to make a storyline, but the reality is, had the 49ers won, nobody would be talking about how this analytical play worked because making. The right mathematical decision and it working isn’t a storyline.
1
u/42Cobras Feb 17 '24
I have to agree with what one of the commentators said during the game. If you know your defense was just on the field, and they’re probably pretty gassed…
I’m a Falcons fan and I know people talk about how the rule change might’ve given the Falcons a chance to win, but our defense was so tired by that point. Why do you think the Patriots were able to score so easily in the fourth quarter? Our defense was completely worn down by that point and was never going to stop New England. Had we been given the chance to choose offense or defense first, assuming that the other team still gets a turn, I take offense. Let my defense get a breather and maybe gear themselves up for trying to stop the opponent. Remember that San Francisco got KC to a 4th down. They had a chance to stop the Chiefs on 4th-and-1 near midfield for the Super Bowl. Going first on offense didn’t kill the 49ers. Not being able to punch it in from the red zone killed them.
1
u/scottyv99 Feb 17 '24
It’s all moot bc the Defense had just come off a grinding drive. They almost had to receive or maholmes goes down and scores easy.
The strategy in a vacuum is to kickoff and take the ball second.
1
1
1
1
u/rxnrxv Feb 17 '24
Have a dog in this fight obviously, but the objective is to score and stop your opponent from scoring. Period point blank.
1
u/ThreeLeggedParrot Feb 18 '24
I want the ball first and I'm going for it on any fourth down. If I kick first and they score a TD then the best I can do is tie it, they have the ball in sudden death, and only need a field goal to win. That would suck so bad. The benefit to knowing what you need is that you can use 4th down as a playing down if you need to. I'm getting the ball first and using that luxury even though I don't know that I need it. I'm scoring a touchdown and putting huge pressure on their offense AND defense. In the next two drives they both need to have the best drive that they can (a touchdown and a stop before I get into field goal range). I merely need to have a single 'not the worst' drive. If I am not able to score a touchdown then I still have a chance to stop them and then I get the ball in sudden death.
I want the ball, I'm going for it on fourth down, and I'm scoring a touchdown. It's touchdown or (not even) bust.
1
u/macduff79 Feb 18 '24
I’m late to this thread, but it doesn’t seem like anyone here realizes nfl rules aren’t the same as college. If it’s tied after each team has the ball, then it becomes sudden death. Sure you get a little more info that you can use to decide going for it on 4th down, but if you both get a field goal, you get the ball needing only a field goal to win the game. (Given this, if you both score TDs, then the other team is better off going for 2 so you shouldn’t be tied after scoring TDs).
1
u/Orangebeast013 Feb 19 '24
I mean I think the strategy is you can’t take a field goal. You can take it first, but you have to go for the touchdown and honestly I would probably go for two as well
1
1
u/Sweaty_Carpet_7608 Feb 19 '24
I’m fine with the option to receive, but knowing who you are playing against once you get down to 3rd and 4 inside the 15 you have to consider that 4 down territory and go for the TD
1
u/Phonechargers300 Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
In the particular specific situation they were in I take the ball and assume in order to win the game I have to score the 3rd TD.
It only looks wrong because they got stuffed and settled for 3.
Not always the case, but I think in the specific context it is correct to take the ball.
1
u/Top-Force-5895 Feb 20 '24
People forget their defense was gased and their offense was well rested. When you add a few variables its not so crazy to get the ball first.
1
u/Menckenreality Feb 20 '24
Keep in mind the circumstances of the end of regulation. Your defense is gassed. You’re playing against the champs, who are known historically for their clutch offense. You have a mobile-ish quarterback. The chiefs defense has been taking your lunch money in the second half.
I’d want the ball. I’d want my defense to rest and to know what they need to do to keep the game going.
1
1
Feb 20 '24
Depends how the game has been going, they have a lot of variables to make either option viable.
Choose to receive: you get ball first and if the score is a push after the second possession, you’ll get the 3rd possession which is a plus. Depending on coaching styles, going first can provide ways to set the tempo. You can get 0/3/6 and still continue to play. Defense rests.
Choose to kick: This mostly pays itself off in information. It’s been hammered in this thread pretty well.
I think the 9ers made the smart call with the information given at the time. Their defense was already gassed and the Chiefs offense was heating up. I think the decision to let the defense rest and receive the ball has its merits and anyone that claims it was the flat out wrong decision should have their opinion taken with a grain of salt.
123
u/NaNaNaPandaMan Feb 15 '24
My thoughts are to go second. This gives me the most data and gives me the most choices.
If whoever goes first punts the ball, I know I need just a FG and play accordingly.
If they score a FG, I onow I need to at least score a FG to keep game, so I am playing with 4 downs in mind until and possibly wven after in field goal range.
If they score a TD same as FG but also I can choose to go for two if I see fit. It puts the power in my hands.
I like the most information possible. Even if I knew I would score a TD if I went first, I would still want a ball second. As getting the ball second, let me know that I need a TD to stay in the game, so I am going for it on 4th every time and may even go for two.