Kick or take the ball in Playoff OT

Prevents the opposing defense from getting rest which is crucial. Receiving the ball is the clear choice imo

If the other Team Scores you are playing with 4 downs. If they don't score you have the Advantage...

.

You get the ball first, score a TD.

Then they get the ball and score a TD.

Then you get the ball, score a TD, and win the game.

I said it in the other thread, Mahomes makes it look so easy that it seems like it's a debate, but it's really not. The amount of pressure on the other team by scoring first is immense.

If the Chiefs got the ball first and scored, is Purdy really driving the field for a TD? Unlikely, IMO.

In comment 16396122 mvftw said:

Quote:

If the other Team Scores you are playing with 4 downs. If they don't score you have the Advantage...

You neglect to mention the 49ers defense was gassed as they were just on D. That is a huge part of the analysis and decision by the coach

In comment 16396134 Manhattan said:

Quote:

You get the ball first, score a TD. Then they get the ball and score a TD. Then you get the ball, score a TD, and win the game.

I don't agree with this, because I think the most likely outcome in a two touchdown scenario is that the team that gets the ball second goes for two and the win.

I would always take it second, because that's how I would play it. Under no circumstances will the other team get the ball back.

Dependant on your comfort level of going for 2 to win the game. If you are okay doing that, kicking in the clear answer. If you aren’t then receiving and advantage on the the potential third possession likely outweighs the knowledge factor.

And, shockingly, annoying Romo said the same thing I did.
San Frans D was tired from KCs drive that just finished, so that was another reason for SF to take the ball.

Also, if SF gets a TD (which they almost did) and then KC does, then SF just needs a FG to win. So you are a possession up.

So, I think there a lot of factors. Teams with really good defenses may want to kick off.

1. You get the benefit of knowing when and where to go for 4th down if necessary instead of punting.

2. The game can still end on a defensive score.

It seems that Shanahan didn't know the New Rule...

In comment 16396205 mvftw said:

Quote:

It seems that Shanahan didn't know the New Rule...

He knew the rule, in his post game conference he cited the third possession as his reason. Agree or disagree with him fine, but he knew the rule

You have to defer. You have the extra down on every series of downs if needed on your first drive.

You also have the ability to go for 2 and the win if you match touchdowns.

Would have punted before their FG and the game would have been over much quicker. Regardless of what he says, I’m thinking he would like to do this one over.

In comment 16396207 Essex said:

Quote:

In comment 16396205 mvftw said: Quote: It seems that Shanahan didn't know the New Rule... He knew the rule, in his post game conference he cited the third possession as his reason. Agree or disagree with him fine, but he knew the rule

Maybe he did, but his players didn't. They found out when they saw it on the big screen. And the third possession you have to go for 2 or don't bother being a HC...

but you cant play for the field goal.

That was one of those times.

In comment 16396270 mvftw said:

Quote:

In comment 16396207 Essex said: Quote: In comment 16396205 mvftw said: Quote: It seems that Shanahan didn't know the New Rule... He knew the rule, in his post game conference he cited the third possession as his reason. Agree or disagree with him fine, but he knew the rule Maybe he did, but his players didn't. They found out when they saw it on the big screen. And the third possession you have to go for 2 or don't bother being a HC...

What exactly did the players see?

I am still really confused about what the 49ers did not know.

Even if they didn't know OT rules changed for playoffs, the 49ers kicked a FG.

If it were still regular season rules - the Chiefs still get the ball back right?

WTF are we talkng about.

in my opinion. If you receive, you are giving the opposition a free extra down. You also give them the opportunity to go for 2 even if you score a TD. That would take some real balls, but the chances of a good team (as 90% of playoff teams are) of picking up 2 yards to end your season, is incredibly high. That said, if you are possessing the ball first, you really can't go for 2.

But the new rule makes the edge smaller than it previously was, so it's a good new rule and lessens the impact of the coin toss.

so getting the ball and doing that is probably no more an advantage then stopping them as I doubt 50% of drives end in points (although with the extended length of kickers I am not so sure about it anymore). There are a lot of considerations, but I think the third possession is a good reason to take the kick. It also depends how aggressive you are going to be on the first drive. So much to factor in.

but without a situation to base this on, I am kicking. If you get a three and out, then you are going to have really good field position.

But in this situation, receiving the ball was the right choice.

49ers defense was just on the field prior to OT. Give them a little extra rest.

And if you really look at it, the Chiefs really didnt play that well on offense the whole game. They were gifted 7 points after the fumbled punt.

its better to apply pressure (receive the ball and score) than to kick it to Mahommes and be down 7 with everything on the line.

The only thing i thought Shanahan should have done was burn thru his timeouts when the Chiefs started moving the ball. Defense was gassed and confused.

I'm taking back to back to back timeouts in OT

If your defense has been on the field the last couple of minutes, it gives them a chance to rest. If their defense was on the field at the end of regulation, it prevents them from resting. Only advantage I can see from kicking, is that you'll know if you need a TD or FG.

until the suspect playcalls near the endzone. You've got to score 7 in that situation, or you're handing Mahomes a gift.

In comment 16396122 mvftw said:

Quote:

If the other Team Scores you are playing with 4 downs. If they don't score you have the Advantage...

You can always play with four downs. Choosing to be conservative (understandably, but still a choice) is not a mandate.

Too many people are viewing this like a baseball inning, when the reality is that it's only that format for one possession each. Then it shifts to sudden death, so accepting that you are going to have to play one series on offense and one series on defense, the advantage that you may get by having more willingness to play four-down football with the second possession is FAR outweighed by being in position to possess the ball first if/when the game shifts to sudden death.

In comment 16396209 Danny Kanell said:

Quote:

You have to defer. You have the extra down on every series of downs if needed on your first drive. You also have the ability to go for 2 and the win if you match touchdowns.

Both teams get four downs on every series of downs. Both teams can go for two following a touchdown.

The reason why the second team will use the 4th down is because tying the game back up carries with it the threat of sudden death. Which means, ipso facto, the sudden death possession is the bigger advantage.

In comment 16396270 mvftw said:

Quote:

In comment 16396207 Essex said: Quote: In comment 16396205 mvftw said: Quote: It seems that Shanahan didn't know the New Rule... He knew the rule, in his post game conference he cited the third possession as his reason. Agree or disagree with him fine, but he knew the rule Maybe he did, but his players didn't. They found out when they saw it on the big screen. And the third possession you have to go for 2 or don't bother being a HC...

Ok, clearly YOU don't know the rules, so maybe stop worrying about Shanahan knowing them or not.

The third possession would be sudden death. You wouldn't even have to attempt a PAT at all.

In comment 16396789 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 16396209 Danny Kanell said: Quote: You have to defer. You have the extra down on every series of downs if needed on your first drive. You also have the ability to go for 2 and the win if you match touchdowns. Both teams get four downs on every series of downs. Both teams can go for two following a touchdown. The reason why the second team will use the 4th down is because tying the game back up carries with it the threat of sudden death. Which means, ipso facto, the sudden death possession is the bigger advantage.

Sudden death was not going to happen though, because KC was going to go for 2.

I agree that you have to kick off of you win the toss, as your offense will be working with more information than if you'd receive. The additional down to gain 10 yards, as well as knowing what you need to end the game on your possession, are big advantages.

It never came up, but it would have been interesting if KC faced a fourth down within FG range. If it were a reasonable yardage I'd expect they'd go for it instead of kicking the tying FG to force sudden death.

In comment 16396801 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Sudden death was not going to happen though, because KC was going to go for 2.

There is an inherent catch-22 in this argument from both sides, because I would argue (and I believe it's just as valid to say) that KC was going to go for two BECAUSE of the threat of sudden death. If not for that, KC isn't going for two there. They're going to tie the game and keep trading possessions.

Which still means that if you're SF in this scenario, you're dictating your opponent's actions. That's always the position you want to be in. That doesn't stop your opponent from beating you anyway (if they are able to convert the 2PA), but I just don't see where most NFL HCs would ever pass on the opportunity to guarantee that they are making their opponent's choices for them.

And you can always ram it right down your opponent's throat on the very first possession of OT and hang 8 on them if that's what you're going to play for as the second team anyway. All of this assumes that you're going to be able to execute according to the optimal outcome anyway, right?

But if you know, going into OT if you get the ball second and your opponent scores a TD on their first possession, that you're going to go for two anyway, what's stopping you from doing that with the first possession if the coin toss puts the ball in your hands to start OT? Then your opponent only has the opportunity to hope that they can put the ball back into your hands with sudden death on the line.

What the right call is. We all have preferences about whether we think the information vs the third possession is the more important factor (assuming fatigue isn’t an issue which it might have been in this case), but there is absolutely no data on this situation—so the criticism of Shanahan seems rather harsh when nobody really knows yet where the advantage lays (or at least hasn’t shown their hypothesis with data). I am sure both teams labbed it out before the game and used other data to decide what the right decision was, but as Shannahan said they just were exploring new ground and their wasn’t a lot of info.

Strong arguments can support either decision. I think the rationale is completely dependent upon the coin toss winner's assessment of their ability to stop the opposition's offense from scoring a touchdown.

If the assessment is high, then you have to kick. Which became the de facto outcome that occurred for the Chiefs yesterday, and clearly put them in the driver's seat when they stopped SF from scoring a TD. If the assessment is low, then you have to receive. Which is the scenario Shanahan was betting on, and a valid assessment given the prodigious talent of Mahomes and clever mind of Reid.

But if this was the assessment, Shanahan needed his team to score a touchdown on that first possession, and probably go for a two point conversion there as well. The field goal was, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. If he was going to simply settle for a field goal, then indeed he should have chosen to kick off in OT. So the criticism he is getting today is valid and well deserved, not for his choice to receive, but for his lack of consistency in following through on the strategy.

The important point appears to be that a favorable outcome in this new format will likely favor being consistently bold and courageous rather than timid and cautious. Touchdowns and two point conversions will likely be required to win these OT games, rather than field goals and extra points. It will probably be rare that a game actually ever gets to "sudden death" unless both teams are like the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens - mediocre offenses with super elite defenses.

Do the Cheifs go for that 4th and 1 if they get the ball first? It was on their own 40 or 30 right?

I highly doubt that.

In comment 16396943 CaLLaHaN said:

Quote:

Do the Cheifs go for that 4th and 1 if they get the ball first? It was on their own 40 or 30 right? I highly doubt that.

Let me ask you this?

Do you think the likelihood that the Chiefs will convert (not simply attempt) that 4th down try would change based on whether they got the ball first or not?

The probability, if all other factors (down/distance/personnel/etc.) remain the same, also remains the same. Which means that you're basing your decision entirely on a willingness to be aggressive being dictated by whether it's necessary or not.

What would stop the Chiefs from going for it on that 4th down if they had the ball first? What makes you think they'd be more likely to punt in that scenario knowing that they might never touch the ball again?