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?
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.
Why do you keep ignoring this.