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 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.

Making a stop on 3rd down is considered not a very likely scenario? What?

The analytics are very clear...

Team A vrs Team B, if team B take the ball first in over time ,they have a 40% of field goal success and a 20% chance of touch down success but then on the ensuring drive the other team have a 42% chance of TD and a 12% chance of field goal but also a big chance of going out however that team doesn't have Mahomes running ability so if you add Mahomes running ability then Team A who got the ball second in OT then increase their chances of scoring a touchdown to 72% and a field goal stays around 12%. So, the percentage numbers are much higher.

The problem is that Kyle Shannahan didn't ask the right question to the analytics team.

Kyle asked what the chances is of winning if you take the ball first in OT and that looks good.

If Kyle had asked the right question, the answer from the analytics team would have been very different.

If Kyle asked what's the chances of a team QBed by Patrick Mahomes who gets the ball second in overtime getting a touchdown, the analytics team would have shut down Kyle immediately and said "Kyle don't be stupid!!! You never give Patrick Mahomes the ball back with the chance to win the game." END OF STORY

Infact the computer they use to run the analytics would have blown up if you asked it such a stupid question.

And that is why Kyle Shannahan made a stupid decision - he didn't factor in the Mahomes factor in the analytics.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

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?

It's considered. I layed out that scenario first. I proposed that in the Shanahan thread as the only scenario besides a defensive bad weather 0-0 game where the third possession would come into play. I layed out the case for the forum already. The problem is it requires team 1 to have made a FG. Dont presuppose this because the 9ers did just that. What are the odds team 1 make a FG? What are the odds team 2 gets in FG range and also in 4th and long? And not just field goal range, but make able field goal range. There's a distance where a 4th and 8 is better then a 60 yard field goal or whatever numbers you want to use. Your playing to a scenario that has a less then 5% change of happening.

My arguments says play to the inherent advantage of knowing what you need and having an extra down to do it. I don't need unlikely scenarios to make that true. It's always true.

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 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.

Making a stop on 3rd down is considered not a very likely scenario? What?

I didn't say that. I said the odds of team 1 making a field goal are x. The odds of getting them in 4th and long is y. The odds of the field position when you get them in 4th and long being in fg range, and in particular a shorter to mid range field goal is z (has to be a distance that has higher odds to make fg and stop 3rd possession offense then to convert 4th and long). The scenario of x, y, and z happening is not a likely scenario.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
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?

'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.'

I understand what you are saying. I'm trying to point out why what you're saying works against you in all realistic situations on 4th down. That's 4th and short because beyond that all teams are kicking the fg in your hypothetical if it's 4th and long. No team is going on 4th and long to avoid you getting the ball first in sudden death. Teams will however go on 4th and short… and that's a bad thing if you're playing defense.

Your last point isn't an advantage set by a decision to kick or receive. It's simply what happens on 4th and long when you play good defense and the other team isn't forced to go.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
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?

'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.'

I understand what you are saying. I'm trying to point out why what you're saying works against you in all realistic situations on 4th down. That's 4th and short because beyond that all teams are kicking the fg in your hypothetical if it's 4th and long. No team is going on 4th and long to avoid you getting the ball first in sudden death. Teams will however go on 4th and short… and that's a bad thing if you're playing defense.

Your last point isn't an advantage set by a decision to kick or receive. It's simply what happens on 4th and long when you play good defense and the other team isn't forced to go.

There has to be a yardage range in 4th down that a team normally wouldn't have gone for it but would because of the 3rd possession disadvantage.

So, whatever you do, don't give the ball to Mahomes and give him a chance to beat you.

Thats all they should have thought about.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
There has to be a yardage range in 4th down that a team normally wouldn't have gone for it but would because of the 3rd possession disadvantage.

There is. Less than 5 yards somewhere. Again, the point is that them going for it in that type of spot is a bad thing for the defense. We don't actually want teams to go for it on 4th and short because it is smart!

You saw an example play out right in front of you. If the Chiefs face a 4th and 1 on their side of the field on the first possession, there is at least a chance they punt. Down 3 on possession two they have no choice but to go for it. That's a disadvantage for the defense. It is forcing the other coach to make the correct decision, when the vast majority of them don't in normal circumstances. You at least allow for the coach to turtle up and play it traditionally if it's the first possession.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

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?

It's considered. I layed out that scenario first. I proposed that in the Shanahan thread as the only scenario besides a defensive bad weather 0-0 game where the third possession would come into play. I layed out the case for the forum already. The problem is it requires team 1 to have made a FG. Dont presuppose this because the 9ers did just that. What are the odds team 1 make a FG? What are the odds team 2 gets in FG range and also in 4th and long? And not just field goal range, but make able field goal range. There's a distance where a 4th and 8 is better then a 60 yard field goal or whatever numbers you want to use. Your playing to a scenario that has a less then 5% change of happening.

My arguments says play to the inherent advantage of knowing what you need and having an extra down to do it. I don't need unlikely scenarios to make that true. It's always true.

My arguments is that after everything is considered, there is no clear advantage one way or another. Someone did a poll with a bunch of analytics staffers and the result was 3 voted lean first possession, 3 voted prefer second posseiosn, 4 voted it to be 50 50. But somehow you considered 7 out of 10 votes (3 lean first possession and 4 considered it 50 50) to be "outliers".

Anyway, I believed the % you came up with is ridiculously low and is completely off from reality.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
There has to be a yardage range in 4th down that a team normally wouldn't have gone for it but would because of the 3rd possession disadvantage.

There is. Less than 5 yards somewhere. Again, the point is that them going for it in that type of spot is a bad thing for the defense. We don't actually want teams to go for it on 4th and short because it is smart!

You saw an example play out right in front of you. If the Chiefs face a 4th and 1 on their side of the field on the first possession, there is at least a chance they punt. Down 3 on possession two they have no choice but to go for it. That's a disadvantage for the defense. It is forcing the other coach to make the correct decision, when the vast majority of them don't in normal circumstances. You at least allow for the coach to turtle up and play it traditionally if it's the first possession.

I disagree. If going for it on 4th down is always bad for the defense, no teams would ever punt or kick a FG. What you said makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
My arguments is that after everything is considered, there is no clear advantage one way or another. Someone did a poll with a bunch of analytics staffers and the result was 3 voted lean first possession, 3 voted prefer second posseiosn, 4 voted it to be 50 50. But somehow you considered 7 out of 10 votes (3 lean first possession and 4 considered it 50 50) to be "outliers".

Anyway, I believed the % you came up with is ridiculously low and is completely off from reality.

I didn't say outlier. That was another poster. I also didn't offer a percentage. What I said in it's most simplest form is we don't want teams going on 4th and short and that no team would go on 4th and long in your hypothetical. That's one of the key points underpinning the discussion. The extra down in a short yardage situation being an advantage for the offense… not the D.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I disagree. If going for it on 4th down is always bad for the defense, no teams would ever punt or kick a FG. What you said makes no sense whatsoever.

On 4th and short… pretty much. You can disagree, as most coaches have throughout the history of the league. Analytics would tell you differently.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I disagree. If going for it on 4th down is always bad for the defense, no teams would ever punt or kick a FG. What you said makes no sense whatsoever.

On 4th and short… pretty much. You can disagree, as most coaches have throughout the history of the league. Analytics would tell you differently.

I wasn't talking about 4th and short. I was talking the yard range that a 3rd possession would change the decision. I don't know why you limit this to 4th and short scenario for no reason.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

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?

It's considered. I layed out that scenario first. I proposed that in the Shanahan thread as the only scenario besides a defensive bad weather 0-0 game where the third possession would come into play. I layed out the case for the forum already. The problem is it requires team 1 to have made a FG. Dont presuppose this because the 9ers did just that. What are the odds team 1 make a FG? What are the odds team 2 gets in FG range and also in 4th and long? And not just field goal range, but make able field goal range. There's a distance where a 4th and 8 is better then a 60 yard field goal or whatever numbers you want to use. Your playing to a scenario that has a less then 5% change of happening.

My arguments says play to the inherent advantage of knowing what you need and having an extra down to do it. I don't need unlikely scenarios to make that true. It's always true.

My arguments is that after everything is considered, there is no clear advantage one way or another. Someone did a poll with a bunch of analytics staffers and the result was 3 voted lean first possession, 3 voted prefer second posseiosn, 4 voted it to be 50 50. But somehow you considered 7 out of 10 votes (3 lean first possession and 4 considered it 50 50) to be "outliers".

Anyway, I believed the % you came up with is ridiculously low and is completely off from reality.

You literally cannot even define where you have an advantage. What down and distance? What part of the field? Your claim is there is somewhere where it must be so. No matter if that is l true or not. Say your are right. That is still a narrow outcome. Your considering only 1 down. Only a narrow part of the field. And you don't think your same principle applies to the first team? There isn't a spot where they would go for it as opposed to punting to the other team? Or opposed to risking missing a long 59 yard field goal and giving the ball to the second team practically in field goal range, especially when Butker claims 70 is possible.

Regardless. I'm more curious what evidence could emerge that would get you to change your position. If KS coaches another playoff overtime and goes second would that make you wonder? What if you lived through another 100 overtime and the second team won 59 to 41, would you consider that sufficient evidence?

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I wasn't talking about 4th and short. I was talking the yard range that a 3rd possession would change the decision. I don't know why you limit this to 4th and short scenario for no reason.

I said why multiple times. Because nobody is going on a 4th and long in easy fg range because they fear the other team having the ball and any score would win.

Even if you believe otherwise, this would apply if that same team had the ball on the first possession. Because if they don't score, then the 2nd possession starts sudden death.