Should the 49ers Have Deferred on the OT Kickoff

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Lets agree on something. If it goes to a 3rd possession, the team with the ball has an advantage. Your figure was 70% win rate earlier. Thats fine, use that. If it comes to a 3rd possession the team with the ball has a 70% chance to win. OK. But what if it goes to a 4th possession? Well, then the team with the ball has the advantage. What about a 5th, a 6th, 7th, 8th? Yes. Those are less and less likely scenarios to happen and not prioritized because the advantage is delayed, but the team with the ball would have the advantage. In other words, the TEAM WITH THE BALL WHEN THE GAME GOES TO SUDDEN DEATH HAS THE ADVANTAGE. In your words, the 70% win rate lies with the team that possess the ball in a sudden death scenario. Take the 3rd possession phrase out of it. Its not a 3rd possession advantage, it a sudden death possession advantage. Once again for clarity, the team with the ball first in sudden death has a 70% win rate. Its just like the old school OT. This is your claim. By those numbers, we want the ball in the soonest possible sudden death scenario. Having the ball 5th is better then 9th for example. Having the ball 3rd is better then 4th.

OK. How do we get to this clearly advantageous sudden death scenario? There are 4 possibilities.

1. Team 1 turnover. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (maybe more depending on field position)
2. Team 1 punt. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (more or less depending on field position)
3. Exchange of TDs
4. Exchange of FGs.

So far 2 of the 4 possible scenarios heavily favor the second team. Lets explore the 2 possibilities, touchdown and field goal, of an even exchange of points.

Team 1 Touchdown. In that case, Team 2 would be forced to score a TD obviously. Assuming even teams considering we got to OT in the first place, the odds of Team 2 scoring a TD are slightly higher then Team 1 because they know they need one. 4th and 5 from the 10 yard line, Team 1 might elect to kick a FG (as the 49ers did), whereas Team 2 would go for it knowing they need a TD. 4th and 12 from your own 30, Team 1 likely punts but Team 2 would go for it. 4th and 25 from midfield, Team 1 would surely punt. Team 2 would go for a hail mary or some pitch play. 4 downs is always an advantage. But more importantly for the discussion, if Team 2 scores the matching TD, they know that kicking a PAT would give Team 1 the 70% win rate advantage of a third possession, so they would not do that. They would go for 2. And 2 point conversion rates are over 50% so the advantage lies with them. Therefore, an exchange of TDs does not lead to a third possession, and an exchange of TDs favors Team 2.

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

When we say 3rd possession advantage, we are talking about an inherent advantage before the OT start. We are not talking about the shifts in advantage after OT started and something happened.

The reason we are discussing the advantage before OT starts is so we can build simulation model incorporating all probabilities and potential outcome, including if the 1st team throws a pick or had to punt.

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

+ Show all quotes
Run simulations from all NFL averages and then act surprised when its 50/50. The average offense is as good as the average defense. Therefore advantage to team that has the ball multiple times first if any advantage is to be gleaned. Great. You formulate the exact average team on Madden, go to playoff OT, let them play 100k times under the same 3 down rules with no 2 point conversions, and sure, 50/50 or slight advantage to Team 1. But thats not what happens...

These models are based on the data that we do have. Kudos for a best guess. There is no empirical data related to the new OT rules, so they are simulating situations from all teams across the league under scenarios that DO NOT apply. A 3rd and 10 from the Bears in the first quarter of week 3 is not the same as a 3rd and 10 from the Chiefs in the SB when they know they have a 4th down behind the play. Completely different playcalling. So if you want to average conversion rates on a 3rd and whatever, cool, but its not applicable to the situation. You want to look at conversion rates when the Patriots are in 2 and 8, great. Thats not the same as the Chiefs against a gassed defense in the 5th quarter, knowing they still have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down. You want to look at league averages of field goals from X distance, great, thats not Harrison Butker. You want to look at 2 point conversion rates of the Falcons, cool, thats not Reid and Mahomes. You want to look at the odds of the Jets with a backup QB producing a scoring drive, great, thats not a superbowl caliber team. The new OT is a completely separate game. The prospect of sudden death changes the strategy. The capabilities of the teams involved changes the strategy. Its a much more complex simulation then you've been made to believe.

Exactly. It is so complex that your brainstorming exercise is not good enough to make a definitive conclusion, especially a conclusion that is different than most detail simulation model conclusion.

No. As I stated, the simulations from non existent data are complex. The ideas are simple.

Building a evolutionary simulation that produces humans from a single cell organism would be an infinitely complex process. The idea is simple.

It is beyond ridiculous to claim your brainstorming analysis is better. Enough said.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It is egregious for multiple reasons. First, it's more or less an admission the pass has to work, or we kick (and we did kick). I feel he passed, cuz he closed his mind to the possibility of 4 downs. Yet 4 downs, and converting a first, essentially hands us the SB. Running is also far more our team MO, than passing. Run blocking I would say is more sound than our pass pro. Watch the breakdowns, JTO takes big issue with having CMC wide, and Kittle all cute next to Brock. Kittle is in the backfield. Why are we doing this? Why did Kittle pick up no one? Good questions to ask. If Kittle gets a pickup, maybe we aren't hot. Maybe we win the SB and hit the layup throw, without the pressure.

Go to the other pass pro eff up. You see JTO and Schwartz hating that popping of the center, more cute Kyle BS. I hate it also.

It's not coincidence why we keep losing these big games. It's sub optimal move, after sub optimal move, until it rains confetti for some other team.

It's not a secret that we could improve in our dropback game from a design standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's an egregious mistake to call a pass on 3rd and 4. Again it is a completely typical playcall… and it was there to be made. You can point to multiple issues on a play… there's nothing wrong with that. A run doesn't even guarantee you positive yardage and though I agree with you that I would have liked to see 4 down thinking in that spot, I also don't think it's some major blunder to kick a field goal at 4th and 4.

Whether every decision resulted in optimal chance at positive outcome, you can point to other things that had equal or greater outcome in the game. Like an all pro RB fumbling the ball away in scoring position, or a flukey punt bounce.

That's the 'fun' part of this. Everyone gets to run crazy with confirmation bias in the blame game when there are a plethora of things that change the outcome of the game.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
It is beyond ridiculous to claim your brainstorming analysis is better. Enough said.

I find scooter actually has this nailed, way more than the 49ers organization,
I don't think the decision is that complex, even Romo during the broadcast said you want the ball 2nd, and the only reason you may want to receive is to 'rest your D'
which Kyle said didn't go into our thinking at all, we predetermined from bogus 'analytics'
the analytics may work facing Kenny Pickett, do you adjust facing Mahomes? Kyle says no, you don't. It's so idiotic.

It's so comical. Kyle doesn't even believe in analytics. The one moment he embraces them, it's analytics that are total BS. The whole point of analytics is to take the millions of real world football moments, (that have happened in game) and extrapolate what has worked and not worked, from real world historical data. This is a OT rule that has never played out. And he has analytics on it? It's BS. He just got in a room with a couple other guys, and didn't come to the right decision, and he calls that analytics. If that happened at all, which perhaps it didn't, quite possible he's just flying by his seat of the pants in the moment.. and calling receive cuz that's how OT is done under the old format.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

It is egregious for multiple reasons. First, it's more or less an admission the pass has to work, or we kick (and we did kick). I feel he passed, cuz he closed his mind to the possibility of 4 downs. Yet 4 downs, and converting a first, essentially hands us the SB. Running is also far more our team MO, than passing. Run blocking I would say is more sound than our pass pro. Watch the breakdowns, JTO takes big issue with having CMC wide, and Kittle all cute next to Brock. Kittle is in the backfield. Why are we doing this? Why did Kittle pick up no one? Good questions to ask. If Kittle gets a pickup, maybe we aren't hot. Maybe we win the SB and hit the layup throw, without the pressure.

It's not coincidence why we keep losing these big games. It's sub optimal move, after sub optimal move, until it rains confetti for some other team.

100%

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
It's not a secret that we could improve in our dropback game from a design standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's an egregious mistake to call a pass on 3rd and 4. Again it is a completely typical playcall… and it was there to be made. You can point to multiple issues on a play… there's nothing wrong with that. A run doesn't even guarantee you positive yardage and though I agree with you that I would have liked to see 4 down thinking in that spot, I also don't think it's some major blunder to kick a field goal at 4th and 4.

Whether every decision resulted in optimal chance at positive outcome, you can point to other things that had equal or greater outcome in the game. Like an all pro RB fumbling the ball away in scoring position, or a flukey punt bounce.

That's the 'fun' part of this. Everyone gets to run crazy with confirmation bias in the blame game when there are a plethora of things that change the outcome of the game.

Nevermind their RB fumbled also in scoring range, and they had a bit of a flukey INT. Kelce kinda gearing down, as Mahomes was reving up the arm. Rare they aren't on the same page.

I do agree that if every single bounce for 60 mins goes Kyle's way he could win a SB. Kinda what we are banking on I guess..
Guys, be perfect. Cuz coach won't.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Nevermind their RB fumbled also in scoring range, and they had a bit of a flukey INT. Kelce kinda gearing down, as Mahomes was reving up the arm. Rare they aren't on the same page.

I do agree that if every single bounce for 60 mins goes Kyle's way he could win a SB. Kinda what we are banking on I guess..
Guys, be perfect. Cuz coach won't.

What an odd take on the points of the post. Again, that confirmation bias working wonders.

It's not asking for perfection when you point out there were multiple things that could have changed the outcome of the game. It's just understanding the way the sport works and reality. You're expecting perfection (as clearly stated in your post) from the coach in hindsight judgement, and you're bending normal events and outcomes as mistakes (like calling a pass on 3rd and 4), because you're mad.

Newsflash: the coach isn't ever going to be perfect and neither are the players or execution.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Lets agree on something. If it goes to a 3rd possession, the team with the ball has an advantage. Your figure was 70% win rate earlier. Thats fine, use that. If it comes to a 3rd possession the team with the ball has a 70% chance to win. OK. But what if it goes to a 4th possession? Well, then the team with the ball has the advantage. What about a 5th, a 6th, 7th, 8th? Yes. Those are less and less likely scenarios to happen and not prioritized because the advantage is delayed, but the team with the ball would have the advantage. In other words, the TEAM WITH THE BALL WHEN THE GAME GOES TO SUDDEN DEATH HAS THE ADVANTAGE. In your words, the 70% win rate lies with the team that possess the ball in a sudden death scenario. Take the 3rd possession phrase out of it. Its not a 3rd possession advantage, it a sudden death possession advantage. Once again for clarity, the team with the ball first in sudden death has a 70% win rate. Its just like the old school OT. This is your claim. By those numbers, we want the ball in the soonest possible sudden death scenario. Having the ball 5th is better then 9th for example. Having the ball 3rd is better then 4th.

OK. How do we get to this clearly advantageous sudden death scenario? There are 4 possibilities.

1. Team 1 turnover. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (maybe more depending on field position)
2. Team 1 punt. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (more or less depending on field position)
3. Exchange of TDs
4. Exchange of FGs.

So far 2 of the 4 possible scenarios heavily favor the second team. Lets explore the 2 possibilities, touchdown and field goal, of an even exchange of points.

Team 1 Touchdown. In that case, Team 2 would be forced to score a TD obviously. Assuming even teams considering we got to OT in the first place, the odds of Team 2 scoring a TD are slightly higher then Team 1 because they know they need one. 4th and 5 from the 10 yard line, Team 1 might elect to kick a FG (as the 49ers did), whereas Team 2 would go for it knowing they need a TD. 4th and 12 from your own 30, Team 1 likely punts but Team 2 would go for it. 4th and 25 from midfield, Team 1 would surely punt. Team 2 would go for a hail mary or some pitch play. 4 downs is always an advantage. But more importantly for the discussion, if Team 2 scores the matching TD, they know that kicking a PAT would give Team 1 the 70% win rate advantage of a third possession, so they would not do that. They would go for 2. And 2 point conversion rates are over 50% so the advantage lies with them. Therefore, an exchange of TDs does not lead to a third possession, and an exchange of TDs favors Team 2.

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

When we say 3rd possession advantage, we are talking about an inherent advantage before the OT start. We are not talking about the shifts in advantage after OT started and something happened.

The reason we are discussing the advantage before OT starts is so we can build simulation model incorporating all probabilities and potential outcome, including if the 1st team throws a pick or had to punt.

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

Run simulations from all NFL averages and then act surprised when its 50/50. The average offense is as good as the average defense. Therefore advantage to team that has the ball multiple times first if any advantage is to be gleaned. Great. You formulate the exact average team on Madden, go to playoff OT, let them play 100k times under the same 3 down rules with no 2 point conversions, and sure, 50/50 or slight advantage to Team 1. But thats not what happens...

These models are based on the data that we do have. Kudos for a best guess. There is no empirical data related to the new OT rules, so they are simulating situations from all teams across the league under scenarios that DO NOT apply. A 3rd and 10 from the Bears in the first quarter of week 3 is not the same as a 3rd and 10 from the Chiefs in the SB when they know they have a 4th down behind the play. Completely different playcalling. So if you want to average conversion rates on a 3rd and whatever, cool, but its not applicable to the situation. You want to look at conversion rates when the Patriots are in 2 and 8, great. Thats not the same as the Chiefs against a gassed defense in the 5th quarter, knowing they still have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down. You want to look at league averages of field goals from X distance, great, thats not Harrison Butker. You want to look at 2 point conversion rates of the Falcons, cool, thats not Reid and Mahomes. You want to look at the odds of the Jets with a backup QB producing a scoring drive, great, thats not a superbowl caliber team. The new OT is a completely separate game. The prospect of sudden death changes the strategy. The capabilities of the teams involved changes the strategy. Its a much more complex simulation then you've been made to believe.

+ Show all quotes
Exactly. It is so complex that your brainstorming exercise is not good enough to make a definitive conclusion, especially a conclusion that is different than most detail simulation model conclusion.

No. As I stated, the simulations from non existent data are complex. The ideas are simple.

Building a evolutionary simulation that produces humans from a single cell organism would be an infinitely complex process. The idea is simple.

It is beyond ridiculous to claim your brainstorming analysis is better. Enough said.

Its called logic. Its quite useful.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
It's not a secret that we could improve in our dropback game from a design standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's an egregious mistake to call a pass on 3rd and 4. Again it is a completely typical playcall… and it was there to be made. You can point to multiple issues on a play… there's nothing wrong with that. A run doesn't even guarantee you positive yardage and though I agree with you that I would have liked to see 4 down thinking in that spot, I also don't think it's some major blunder to kick a field goal at 4th and 4.

Whether every decision resulted in optimal chance at positive outcome, you can point to other things that had equal or greater outcome in the game. Like an all pro RB fumbling the ball away in scoring position, or a flukey punt bounce.

That's the 'fun' part of this. Everyone gets to run crazy with confirmation bias in the blame game when there are a plethora of things that change the outcome of the game.

Not entirely just about yards though with the run, it would have also forced KC to use a timeout. How consequential is that? Who knows. Down three with 1:50 and only one timeout compared to two may not matter with Mahomes at the helm. But the Chiefs did use 2 timeouts on the final drive and kicked a FG with downs remaining because there was only 6 seconds left on the clock. It certainly would have safeguarded against the winning TD more. Possibly changed play calling to be more aggressive to get into FG range, which could be good or bad.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Nevermind their RB fumbled also in scoring range, and they had a bit of a flukey INT. Kelce kinda gearing down, as Mahomes was reving up the arm. Rare they aren't on the same page.

I do agree that if every single bounce for 60 mins goes Kyle's way he could win a SB. Kinda what we are banking on I guess..
Guys, be perfect. Cuz coach won't.

What an odd take on the points of the post. Again, that confirmation bias working wonders.

It's not asking for perfection when you point out there were multiple things that could have changed the outcome of the game. It's just understanding the way the sport works and reality. You're expecting perfection (as clearly stated in your post) from the coach in hindsight judgement, and you're bending normal events and outcomes as mistakes (like calling a pass on 3rd and 4), because you're mad.

Newsflash: the coach isn't ever going to be perfect and neither are the players or execution.

Sure if every bounce went our way and if our guys never made any mistakes, we win. That's you asking for perfection. I don't ask for it. I understand no one is perfect. That's why I don't put huge fault on CMC. Or Trent. They made an error or two. Kyle made over a dozen in a short span. I even created a list.

Originally posted by scooterhd:
Not entirely just about yards though with the run, it would have also forced KC to use a timeout. How consequential is that? Who knows. Down three with 1:50 and only one timeout compared to two may not matter with Mahomes at the helm. But the Chiefs did use 2 timeouts on the final drive and kicked a FG with downs remaining because there was only 6 seconds left on the clock. It certainly would have safeguarded against the winning TD more. Possibly changed play calling to be more aggressive to get into FG range, which could be good or bad.

Agree with this… though I tend to think wasting a timeout probably ends up inconsequential. I do like the idea of running there with the idea that you get into a more favorable position to go on 4th. Just not crushing the coach because he opted to pass instead. Completely within the bounds of expected playcalling.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Nevermind their RB fumbled also in scoring range, and they had a bit of a flukey INT. Kelce kinda gearing down, as Mahomes was reving up the arm. Rare they aren't on the same page.

I do agree that if every single bounce for 60 mins goes Kyle's way he could win a SB. Kinda what we are banking on I guess..
Guys, be perfect. Cuz coach won't.

What an odd take on the points of the post. Again, that confirmation bias working wonders.

It's not asking for perfection when you point out there were multiple things that could have changed the outcome of the game. It's just understanding the way the sport works and reality. You're expecting perfection (as clearly stated in your post) from the coach in hindsight judgement, and you're bending normal events and outcomes as mistakes (like calling a pass on 3rd and 4), because you're mad.

Newsflash: the coach isn't ever going to be perfect and neither are the players or execution.

You're trying to reason with someone who cannot argue in good-faith. Might as well shout into the wind.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Sure if every bounce went our way and if our guys never made any mistakes, we win. That's you asking for perfection. I don't ask for it. I understand no one is perfect. That's why I don't put huge fault on CMC. Or Trent. They made an error or two. Kyle made over a dozen in a short span. I even created a list.

I don't expect perfection from any of them. I'm not blaming any one thing for an OT loss against an evenly matched team. Your list was very flawed.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Nevermind their RB fumbled also in scoring range, and they had a bit of a flukey INT. Kelce kinda gearing down, as Mahomes was reving up the arm. Rare they aren't on the same page.

I do agree that if every single bounce for 60 mins goes Kyle's way he could win a SB. Kinda what we are banking on I guess..
Guys, be perfect. Cuz coach won't.

What an odd take on the points of the post. Again, that confirmation bias working wonders.

It's not asking for perfection when you point out there were multiple things that could have changed the outcome of the game. It's just understanding the way the sport works and reality. You're expecting perfection (as clearly stated in your post) from the coach in hindsight judgement, and you're bending normal events and outcomes as mistakes (like calling a pass on 3rd and 4), because you're mad.

Newsflash: the coach isn't ever going to be perfect and neither are the players or execution.

You're trying to reason with someone who cannot argue in good-faith. Might as well shout into the wind.

What does that even mean, in good faith? I created a list of all I felt he did wrong. Dozen plus things, in crunch time. Notice you don't talk NFL football or late game stuff. I realize I am critiquing Kyle, and I also realize there are no shortage of folks who feel he can do no wrong. I imagine I will run into some takes like this, where ppl make a more personal response, and go off road not even talking football or tactics or the SB. But that reveals about you, not me

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Sure if every bounce went our way and if our guys never made any mistakes, we win. That's you asking for perfection. I don't ask for it. I understand no one is perfect. That's why I don't put huge fault on CMC. Or Trent. They made an error or two. Kyle made over a dozen in a short span. I even created a list.

I don't expect perfection from any of them. I'm not blaming any one thing for an OT loss against an evenly matched team. Your list was very flawed.

Feel free to go thru it. JTO and Schwartz hated the pass pro on the key downs. The pass plays failed. The OT tactics were a joke. They weren't fleshed out with our guys in advance. We have our guys postgame saying we weren't prepared for the biggest moment. We didn't discuss it.

Let me take you back a couple months ago, when you were probably rightly complaining about Wilks,
ok imagine I told you then, that the season, by Kyle's volition, would come down to a now fired Wilks D'ing up the Michael Jordan of football twice
with lil diddly poo 3 point leads
you would have laughed. You would have said, ok we aren't winning the SB. You would have known Kyle would be much better off to have it in the hands of the O, not the D. You knew that months ago. Kyle didn't know it. He's still waiting for that 3rd possession.

Wouldn't have made a difference.