Should the 49ers Have Deferred on the OT Kickoff

Originally posted by JTB1974:
It's simple. You never let Mahomes have the ball last with a chance to win the game. He will win it everytime. So really the only hope to win when they chose to take the ball 1st is to score a TD and then get a 2 PT conversion.

He had the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to win it and he didn't win it then.

I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
He had the ball in the 4th quarter with a chance to win it and he didn't win it then.

No but he did march down the field to tie the game. Which is why the Niners had to make sure he didn't get the ball back. But they failed on the 3rd and 4 and because of that, Mahomes got the ball back.

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

What the 49ers should have done was run on 3rd and 4 and then gone for it again on 4th down. We could have got a first down without getting a TD so it was a perfect chance to go for it.

I don't think it would've made a difference. KC was going to score. I'm 100% confident in that. Im not confident we would match it, even with 4 downs.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

It's better to go on offense first in the scenario where both teams get a chance to possess no matter what with a time limit. You can potentially put more pressure on your opponent if you can milk significant clock and score a TD. Doing so puts them at a time disadvantage and adds more pressure. We blew it in not scoring and not taking more time doing it.

Definitely IMO.

That said, I don't think it's a thing worth this kind of attention. Still need to score and get a stop.

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

It's better to go on offense first in the scenario where both teams get a chance to possess no matter what with a time limit. You can potentially put more pressure on your opponent if you can milk significant clock and score a TD. Doing so puts them at a time disadvantage and adds more pressure. We blew it in not scoring and not taking more time doing it.

It wouldn't matter how much time we took unfortunately. We could've scored with 3 seconds left and Kc would get as much time as they needed to complete their possession under the rules.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

It's better to go on offense first in the scenario where both teams get a chance to possess no matter what with a time limit. You can potentially put more pressure on your opponent if you can milk significant clock and score a TD. Doing so puts them at a time disadvantage and adds more pressure. We blew it in not scoring and not taking more time doing it.

It wouldn't matter how much time we took unfortunately. We could've scored with 3 seconds left and Kc would get as much time as they needed to complete their possession under the rules.

That's not true. It's just extremely unlikely the 1st or 2nd possessions would take 28 minutes of game time to reach the 2-Minute warning of the 6th period.

skip to 5:54 and listen to mahomes and his teammates after the 49ers win the toss.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

It's better to go on offense first in the scenario where both teams get a chance to possess no matter what with a time limit. You can potentially put more pressure on your opponent if you can milk significant clock and score a TD. Doing so puts them at a time disadvantage and adds more pressure. We blew it in not scoring and not taking more time doing it.

It wouldn't matter how much time we took unfortunately. We could've scored with 3 seconds left and Kc would get as much time as they needed to complete their possession under the rules.

I had missed the second teams possession is not constrained by the quarter. Ty, this is literally my 1st forray into anything 49ers or NFL since the moment of the loss.

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

It's better to go on offense first in the scenario where both teams get a chance to possess no matter what with a time limit. You can potentially put more pressure on your opponent if you can milk significant clock and score a TD. Doing so puts them at a time disadvantage and adds more pressure. We blew it in not scoring and not taking more time doing it.

It wouldn't matter how much time we took unfortunately. We could've scored with 3 seconds left and Kc would get as much time as they needed to complete their possession under the rules.

I had missed the second teams possession is not constrained by the quarter. Ty, this is literally my 1st forray into anything 49ers or NFL since the moment of the loss.

Analytics teams is excepting applications...

In all seriousness, how does this affect your opinion on going first?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
I really don't get the debate here. Its completely obvious that regardless of outcomes, it is better to go second. I could imagine a 0-0 game in miserable weather where scoring seems unlikely and so you want first crack at sudden death. Outside of something completely unlikely for a superbowl, you go second every time. Every match up. Its nearly as obvious as going first with the old rules. Does any coach in college choose to go first because there are thinking about an advantage that may or may not happen later in the overtime?

Why is it that there have been tons of former players and NFL analysts who think otherwise?

Bottom line is, there were conflicting beliefs about this. There was not an obvious choice. If there was, everyone who did NOT have skin in the game would be in total agreement....and that isnt the case.

There is massive agreement the other way. You can always find outliers. You can always find ex players that don't know the rules and have never even played in a game like that so experience is null. I wouldnt be surprised if a great quarterback said give me the damn ball thinking with their gut. The arguments for it are weak. Rest? Third possession which has a low probability of happening since 2nd team knows that and will go for it. You can't beat having an extra down and knowing what you need.

We literally just saw it play out. SF doesn't know what it needs to win and accepts a FG. KC knows a touchdown wins and uses 4 downs to get it... it worked like it is supposed to....

By taking the ball first and scoring only a FG they gave Mahomes 4 downs to get 10 yards.

Stupid decision by Kyle as usual.