Should the 49ers Have Deferred on the OT Kickoff

Originally posted by scooterhd:

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....

I have explained this a few times in his forum. The 3rd possession advantage is an advantage that doesn't necessarily need the 3rd possession to materialize. I believe this is the mistake you are making.

At the end of the day, the only wrong answer is to be very confident that there is a no brainer choice.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition and concept of outliers.

2nd makes the most sense

If the chiefs have the ball first, there is 3 options

no score = punt and niners win on next possession. I. This situation, chiefs are still aggressive but they aren't going to go for it on every single 4th down. They may not have punted, but this changes the psychology completely

FG = niners get it and can tie or win. They get 4 downs every single time they get a first down.

TD = same as last scenario. They get 4 downs every time they get a first down. They get 4 downs at their own 20,30,40,50, and every time they need it

By getting 4 downs, they essentially only need 2.5 yards per play, which is next to nothing. They could literally just gain as much as possible on first, then run 3 times. I know it's not that simple, but it does give them more opportunities.

When you know you have 4 downs, you can also get much more creative with the playcalling.

Logic says get the ball second, since no matter what your defense does, your offense will get a chance to match or do better.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I have explained this a few times in his forum. The 3rd possession advantage is an advantage that doesn't necessarily need the 3rd possession to materialize. I believe this is the mistake you are making.

At the end of the day, the only wrong answer is to be very confident that there is a no brainer choice.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition and concept of outliers.

I think a key piece of information is knowing exactly what you need to do to win. That cannot happen with the 1st possession. You don't have the decision making control on that possession as you would on drive 2.

Need a fg. Need a td. Go for two on a td. Go on 4th downs.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

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....

I have explained this a few times in his forum. The 3rd possession advantage is an advantage that doesn't necessarily need the 3rd possession to materialize. I believe this is the mistake you are making.

At the end of the day, the only wrong answer is to be very confident that there is a no brainer choice.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition and concept of outliers.

I've seen those arguments. They aren't very rational. Team 2 wants to avoid a third possession so they go for 2 if they score. That's actually puts them at an advantage since 2pt conversion success rate is over 50%. Team 2 is aggressive to score, yes, but so was Team 1 because you don't know what you need but you know you don't want to punt. I don't see much difference other then team 2 gets 4 downs to be aggressive with. If you kick a field goal first, team 2 is going to monitor winning percentage. There's incentive to not kick a FG and go for it, but they are going to monitor analytics and win percentage to decide what are odds of making this 4th and whatever vs the odds of making this field goal and getting the next stop. Either way the decision is in their hands and they get the opportunity to align themselves with the odds. Team 1 doesn't get that.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

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....

I have explained this a few times in his forum. The 3rd possession advantage is an advantage that doesn't necessarily need the 3rd possession to materialize. I believe this is the mistake you are making.

At the end of the day, the only wrong answer is to be very confident that there is a no brainer choice.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition and concept of outliers.

I've seen those arguments. They aren't very rational. Team 2 wants to avoid a third possession so they go for 2 if they score. That's actually puts them at an advantage since 2pt conversion success rate is over 50%. Team 2 is aggressive to score, yes, but so was Team 1 because you don't know what you need but you know you don't want to punt. I don't see much difference other then team 2 gets 4 downs to be aggressive with. If you kick a field goal first, team 2 is going to monitor winning percentage. There's incentive to not kick a FG and go for it, but they are going to monitor analytics and win percentage to decide what are odds of making this 4th and whatever vs the odds of making this field goal and getting the next stop. Either way the decision is in their hands and they get the opportunity to align themselves with the odds. Team 1 doesn't get that.

I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose between two bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose between two bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

With respect that example/situation should be so far down in consideration behind other factors. You wouldn't make any possession decisions based on a fourth and long scenario… and the kick would always be chosen when faced with one (provided it wins or ties the game). No team will go on 4th and long to prevent the other team getting the first look in sudden death.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

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....

I have explained this a few times in his forum. The 3rd possession advantage is an advantage that doesn't necessarily need the 3rd possession to materialize. I believe this is the mistake you are making.

At the end of the day, the only wrong answer is to be very confident that there is a no brainer choice.

Also, I don't think you understand the definition and concept of outliers.

I've seen those arguments. They aren't very rational. Team 2 wants to avoid a third possession so they go for 2 if they score. That's actually puts them at an advantage since 2pt conversion success rate is over 50%. Team 2 is aggressive to score, yes, but so was Team 1 because you don't know what you need but you know you don't want to punt. I don't see much difference other then team 2 gets 4 downs to be aggressive with. If you kick a field goal first, team 2 is going to monitor winning percentage. There's incentive to not kick a FG and go for it, but they are going to monitor analytics and win percentage to decide what are odds of making this 4th and whatever vs the odds of making this field goal and getting the next stop. Either way the decision is in their hands and they get the opportunity to align themselves with the odds. Team 1 doesn't get that.

I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose but both are bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

Thats one scenario where team 1 has to have made a field goal and team 2 has to be in 4th and long but also within easy field goal range to be realized. That's not a very likely scenario and shouldn't be catered too. Not to mention that on third and 10 you know you have 4 downs and don't need to run deep routes and get sacked or hold to make a play. A quick out or slant or bubble screen for 6 yards is perfectly reasonable.

Of course bad outcomes can happen. The player can get blackjack. But the odds are with the dealer. Come up with 45 out of 100 possible outcomes to fit your narrative but you've still given yourself the lesser chance.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose between two bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

With respect that example/situation should be so far down in consideration behind other factors. You wouldn't make any possession decisions based on a fourth and long scenario… and the kick would always be chosen when faced with one (provided it wins or ties the game). No team will go on 4th and long to prevent the other team getting the first look in sudden death.

I completely disagree. It is a matter of the distance. 4th and 3? 4th and 5? 4th and 7th? At some point the Chiefs would have gone for it because of the 3rd possession disadvantage and wouldn't have gone for it without that.

No. They should never have played for overtime. They should have finished the game when they had the ball inside 2 minutes. Playing for OT was always a losing proposition. If we score a TD first, Mahomes wins it with a 2-point conversion. If the Chiefs score first, we go and score a TD (Kyle doesn't have the vision to go for a game winning 2pt conversion) and then Mahomes wins it on the 3rd possession.

You never give the ball to the best player in the game at the end. Don't let Michael Jordan beat you. It's sports 101. After all these years of watching Mahomes rip teams apart with the last possession, you'd think Kyle would have learned a thing or two.

But nope. He made the same mistake TWICE in a span of 30 minutes. Botches a drive in the 4th, lets Mahomes tie it. Botches a drive in OT, let's Mahomes win it.

EPIC FAILURE !

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I completely disagree. It is a matter of the distance. 4th and 3? 4th and 5? 4th and 7th? At some point the Chiefs would have gone for it because of the 3rd possession disadvantage and wouldn't have gone for it without that.

You said 4th and long. No team is going in that scenario.

4th and 3 I would agree forces them into a potential go decision… the problem is it works against you because going on 4th and short is almost always the smart play in terms of win probability. You are forcing the other team to make good decisions, and not allowing for bad ones.

Honestly it didn't f**kin matter.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose between two bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

With respect that example/situation should be so far down in consideration behind other factors. You wouldn't make any possession decisions based on a fourth and long scenario… and the kick would always be chosen when faced with one (provided it wins or ties the game). No team will go on 4th and long to prevent the other team getting the first look in sudden death.

I completely disagree. It is a matter of the distance. 4th and 3? 4th and 5? 4th and 7th? At some point the Chiefs would have gone for it because of the 3rd possession disadvantage and wouldn't have gone for it without that.

So your basing all decision making off the hypothetical situation that you make a field goal. And then that the Chiefs get in FG range but also get in a 4th and 13. That's your tactic to winning the game?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I completely disagree. It is a matter of the distance. 4th and 3? 4th and 5? 4th and 7th? At some point the Chiefs would have gone for it because of the 3rd possession disadvantage and wouldn't have gone for it without that.

You said 4th and long. No team is going in that scenario.

4th and 3 I would agree forces them into a potential go decision… the problem is it works against you because going on 4th and short is almost always the smart play in terms of win probability. You are forcing the other team to make good decisions, and not allowing for bad ones.

OMG. You are being ridiculously.

I said there is a 4th down and whichever distance in the decision to go for it or not would be impacted by the Niners' 3rd possession advantage.

Or let say 4th and really long the Chiefs kicks a FG to tie. 3rd possession advantage realized. Get it now?

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I supposed you seen this argument but you failed to understand.

Let say it is 4th and long and the Chiefs don't like the odds, but they don't want the 49ers to have the 3rd possession advantage, so they are forced to go for it rather than kick an easy FG. In this case the 3rd possession advantage is realized. Yes going for it might be the better odds for the Chiefs comparing to giving the 49ers the ball in a sudden death situation. The Chiefs can choose the odds, but you can't take the 3rd possession advantage away from the 49ers in this situation. It is like forcing the Chiefs to choose between two bad options.

In this scenario if the Niners don't have the 3rd possession advantage, and a tie game means 50 50 ball game, then the Chiefs would easily choose to kick the FG.

With respect that example/situation should be so far down in consideration behind other factors. You wouldn't make any possession decisions based on a fourth and long scenario… and the kick would always be chosen when faced with one (provided it wins or ties the game). No team will go on 4th and long to prevent the other team getting the first look in sudden death.

I completely disagree. It is a matter of the distance. 4th and 3? 4th and 5? 4th and 7th? At some point the Chiefs would have gone for it because of the 3rd possession disadvantage and wouldn't have gone for it without that.

So your basing all decision making off the hypothetical situation that you make a field goal. And then that the Chiefs get in FG range but also get in a 4th and 13. That's your tactic to winning the game?

What? Are you saying this is not a factor. Not something to considered? Seriously?

Originally posted by scooterhd:
So your basing all decision making off the hypothetical situation that you make a field goal. And then that the Chiefs get in FG range but also get in a 4th and 13. That's your tactic to winning the game?

Whatever his thinking is, no team is opting to go on 4th and long in easy field goal range on the 2nd possession of overtime when a kick either ties or wins the game.

Like I mentioned… 4th and short? Sure. But that's the point. We don't want teams to go on 4th and short lol. We want them to kick/punt.