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:

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?

+ Show all quotes
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?

I have already spelled it out for you. If you don't want to understand it, it is fine. There is probably no evidence that can get you to change your position.

Cross-posting from the Kyle thread..

I'm not sure if the Youtuebe Super Bowl Mic' up video shows it... but on NFL Turning Point they showed the refs reaction to us choosing to recieve in OT.

The head ref was so shocked he needed the other ref to repeat it to him to confirm...... then the head ref shrugged his shoulders like ok I guess...

Then they showed up an up close reaction of Pat Mahomes when he saw Fred Warner say recieve... he had a shocked look on his face but tried to play it off...the NFL media evem paused it to show his shocked face.

I hate that some in here make some fans feel like there was any real both sides s**t when it came to that the decision.

There is a REASON why college teams choose defer 100% of the time! STOP b******tING! KYLE f**kED UP... Too smart for his own good....another example of that s**t at our players, the organization, and fan's expense.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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.

I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

I don't know if you purposely say 4th and short and 4th and long as if there is nothing between short and long.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

Because I'm addressing your hypothetical. It worked against your argument.

And no, I don't think teams are going on 4th and medium because of a third possession either. Again… this would also apply on the first possession because sudden death can start on the second without a score.

Teams aren't saying 'hey, we need to go for a low percentage 4th down because if we give the ball to other team and they score it's game over'

and if they were, it would apply to 4th and mediums on the first possession!

Full repeat mode.*

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

4th and medium, but only after team 1 kicks a field goal. Don't forget the limiters. If team 1 scores a TD, you always go for it and get an extra down to gain a first. If team 1 punts, that already started sudden death. They made the same decision you have to, so there is no third possession advantage. It's equivalent to the second possession advantage on a punt. So you are already arguing from a narrowed range of outcomes even if you find some truth.

Originally posted by scooterhd:
4th and medium, but only after team 1 kicks a field goal. Don't forget the limiters. If team 1 scores a TD, you always go for it and get an extra down to gain a first. If team 1 punts, that already started sudden death. They made the same decision you have to, so there is no third possession advantage. It's equivalent to the second possession advantage on a punt. So you are already arguing from a narrowed range of outcomes even if you find some truth.

100 percent.

I believed teams that have the ball first in OT between 1994 to 2012 had ~60% winning %. Noted that prior to 2013 any points win. You can use that to calculate the winning % when the 3rd possession advantage is realized. The % is higher than 60% because of the following factors:

1. Kickoff touchback has been changed from 20 to 25 yard line
2. Offenses are better in this era
3. Kickers have longer range.

The 3rd possession advantage winning % might now be closer to 70%.

So if you deferred in OT and you need to decide between a game tying FG or go for it on 4th and medium with 35% conversion rate, you might need to go for it on 4th down even though the conversion % is low.

Honestly don't care anymore. Hindsight, If we deferred and they scored a TD, what make you think we can score a TD.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

+ Show all quotes
4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

4th and medium, but only after team 1 kicks a field goal. Don't forget the limiters. If team 1 scores a TD, you always go for it and get an extra down to gain a first. If team 1 punts, that already started sudden death. They made the same decision you have to, so there is no third possession advantage. It's equivalent to the second possession advantage on a punt. So you are already arguing from a narrowed range of outcomes even if you find some truth.

This is like saying if you fumble the ball on the kick off return, you are at a disadvantage. Or if you throw an int, you are in a disadvantage. To describe that as 2nd possession advantage is ridiculous.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I believed teams that have the ball first in OT between 1994 to 2012 had ~60% winning %. Noted that prior to 2013 any points win. You can use that to calculate the winning % when the 3rd possession advantage is realized. The % is higher than 60% because of the following factors:

1. Kickoff touchback has been changed from 20 to 25 yard line
2. Offenses are better in this era
3. Kickers have longer range.

The 3rd possession advantage winning % might now be closer to 70%.

So if you deferred in OT and you need to decide between a game tying FG or go for it on 4th and medium with 35% conversion rate, you might need to go for it on 4th down even though the conversion % is low.

Imagine you don't defer. You go first. If you do not score then the second team will have the second possession advantage. You may need to decide between a FG or go for it on 4th and medium with 35% conversion rate, you might need to go for it on 4th down even though the conversion % is low.

Originally posted by ninerfan818:
This has been discussed ad nauseum. I feel the team should have deferred and was shocked they took the ball first.

I would have liked to let the defense set the tone like the team usually does during the regular season. Some great points were made that doing this gave the best QB in the world basically 4 downs for the rest of OT and sealed the 49ers fate.

I was surprised by the decision. It was a break from the norm and it cost us a dub IMO. What say yall?

IT didn't really matter.. the MISTAKE was that Shanny should have just ran the ball... we had 2 downs to get the 1st, then 4 more downs to get in the end zone and run more time off the clock..

Shanny's NOT a HC.. who in the world would give Mahomes the ball w/a 3 point lead?? the very least he could have done is think about how KC marched down so easily and tied the game at the end of the 4th..

SHANNY MUST GO.. IF HE REALLY CARES ABOUT THIS FRANCHISE, HE SHOULD JUST RESIGN..

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

+ Show all quotes
4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

4th and medium, but only after team 1 kicks a field goal. Don't forget the limiters. If team 1 scores a TD, you always go for it and get an extra down to gain a first. If team 1 punts, that already started sudden death. They made the same decision you have to, so there is no third possession advantage. It's equivalent to the second possession advantage on a punt. So you are already arguing from a narrowed range of outcomes even if you find some truth.

This is like saying if you fumble the ball on the kick off return, you are at a disadvantage. Or if you throw an int, you are in a disadvantage. To describe that as 2nd possession advantage is ridiculous.

You realize the first team punting changes the game into sudden death right? Next score wins. A punt for either team 1 or team 2 creates the exact same scenario. You cannot claim there is a third possession advantage on an exchange of punts without also claiming there is a second possession advantage if the first team punts.

Chiefs would be scored either way. Even easier IMO if they deferred.

Defense was EXHAUSTED.