|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ari Meirov @MySportsUpdate Multiple #49ers players said after the game that they were not aware of the new overtime rules. The #Chiefs, on the other hand, have been planning for this scenario, and DT Chris Jones said they were going to go for two had San Francisco scored a TD, per @bylindsayhjones |
If it is fair that both teams get a possession in the playoffs, it should be fair that both teams get a possession in a regular season OT game.
As Romo commented, some of the thinking was that the 49er defense had been on the field for a while to end the game, so putting them right back on the field to start OT would be a disadvantage. As commented above, taking the ball first gives them the advantage should they get to the sudden death portion.
The main advantage of going second is it being 4 down territory if the first team scores and you absolutely have to score. That's a huge advantage under the playoff rules.
Agreed. Romo and Nantz were embarrassing, particularly Romo. Remember that play with Kittle when he got the first down along the sideline but Nantz was quick to say he didn't and then Romo said he did?
NOPE.. cause I was screaming
" why arent they taking a timeout !!! "
Yeah when the Chiefs got stopped short on that 3rd down (before the Mahomes run on 4th) they're both just like OHHHHHHHH like a bunch of teenagers lol
Also was not suggesting players not knowing the rules was a strategy, and a best practice. The question I asked was "why it was critical that the players knew the OT rules?" Time was not a factor so no decisions about getting out of bounds or running the clock matter in playoff OT.
I think you are misinterpreting my post. I think it’s strange to think players not knowing the rules can’t have an impact on the game, especially in a critical situation like this one (if this rumor is true). Coach says this, I do this, probably works most of the time but even having a shred of uncertainty about what’s going on can effect your play.
I mentioned in the game thread, the players looked unprepared for that final snap before the pass to Hardman. I have no idea if it was them not knowing the rules, thinking they were going to take the time down to start the 2nd quarter, or something else but San Fran looked lost.
It’s no worse than forgetting Christian McCaffrey is on his team for the entire 3rd quarter.
Their defense had just been on the field.
"For the playoffs only, both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball. Gone are the days of winning the toss, scoring a touchdown and ending the game."
The change was that a TD by the team first possessing the ball no longer ended the game.
Quote:
did a terrible job capturing the huge moments in this game. Romo stinks and should be fired IMO.
Agreed. Romo and Nantz were embarrassing, particularly Romo. Remember that play with Kittle when he got the first down along the sideline but Nantz was quick to say he didn't and then Romo said he did?
Yup, Romo was explaining the OT rule and took all the excitement out of the winning play. He's very intelligent but sometimes its like someone talking about the reproductive system during sex.
Quote:
Go back and read what I wrote. I said the coaches need to know the rules. I am not sure why you think I was suggesting the coaches didn't need to know the rules.
Also was not suggesting players not knowing the rules was a strategy, and a best practice. The question I asked was "why it was critical that the players knew the OT rules?" Time was not a factor so no decisions about getting out of bounds or running the clock matter in playoff OT.
I think you are misinterpreting my post. I think it’s strange to think players not knowing the rules can’t have an impact on the game, especially in a critical situation like this one (if this rumor is true). Coach says this, I do this, probably works most of the time but even having a shred of uncertainty about what’s going on can effect your play.
I mentioned in the game thread, the players looked unprepared for that final snap before the pass to Hardman. I have no idea if it was them not knowing the rules, thinking they were going to take the time down to start the 2nd quarter, or something else but San Fran looked lost.
Hardman was also not sure of the rules. He admitted that after catching the winning TD he wasn't aware the game was over.
Players should obviously know the rules, no question. I was reacting to the idea it was negligent to not have drilled them on the OT rules since they don't decide strategy, and time (get out of bounds / stay in bounds) which the players do manage on the field is not relevant to that situation.
It would have been only the second game ever to go into a second OT in NFL history. Who can name the first?
You would fire Andy Reid this morning since Hardman didn't know the rules (which he admitted after the game)?
KC would have gone for the TD instead of the FGs. So who knows.
Quote:
In comment 16396342 mittenedman said:
Quote:
did a terrible job capturing the huge moments in this game. Romo stinks and should be fired IMO.
Agreed. Romo and Nantz were embarrassing, particularly Romo. Remember that play with Kittle when he got the first down along the sideline but Nantz was quick to say he didn't and then Romo said he did?
Yup, Romo was explaining the OT rule and took all the excitement out of the winning play. He's very intelligent but sometimes its like someone talking about the reproductive system during sex.
That is a great analogy. Understanding the details of how everything works in the game of football is not why most people tune in. They either already understand it or likely don't care. Most watch for the drama of the moment and he doesn't get that at all, save his yelling "This is for the Superbowl!" in 5 different places where it wasn't.
Explaining OT timing rules as the Superbowl is won in overtime should be the epitaph on his broadcasting career.
Quote:
Who didn't know the Chiefs 1st possession would carry over to a 2nd OT quarter?
It would have been only the second game ever to go into a second OT in NFL history. Who can name the first?
Miami KC in the 70s.......
Quote:
In comment 16396305 Lenny in Indy said:
Quote:
Who didn't know the Chiefs 1st possession would carry over to a 2nd OT quarter?
It would have been only the second game ever to go into a second OT in NFL history. Who can name the first?
Miami KC in the 70s.......
Yep. The Ed Podolak game on Christmas Day 1971.
Sure there is.
If both teams trade equal scores (both score FGs or both score TDs with the same PAT value), the team who got the ball first now has the first sudden death possession, which is what you'd want.
I'm not sure why people confuse the favorable outcome with the favorable decision, but San Fran's decision to receive was a defensible one, IMO. I'm not saying that there wasn't as much (or more) benefit to deferring, but some folks are acting like it was a major gaffe, when in actuality, there are legitimate benefits to either scenario.
And then there's the fact that even if San Fran didn't fully grasp the new postseason OT rules, the way the game actually played out would have been identical under the regular season OT rules.
This post explains so much about the way you view so many football topics.
Thinking 3-4 steps ahead is a GOOD thing.
Quote:
There’s no advantage to that at all with the current rules
Sure there is.
If both teams trade equal scores (both score FGs or both score TDs with the same PAT value), the team who got the ball first now has the first sudden death possession, which is what you'd want.
I'm not sure why people confuse the favorable outcome with the favorable decision, but San Fran's decision to receive was a defensible one, IMO. I'm not saying that there wasn't as much (or more) benefit to deferring, but some folks are acting like it was a major gaffe, when in actuality, there are legitimate benefits to either scenario.
And then there's the fact that even if San Fran didn't fully grasp the new postseason OT rules, the way the game actually played out would have been identical under the regular season OT rules.
And SF's defense had just been out there for the long drive to end regulation. Why would you kickoff and put them right back out there to stop Mahomes?
Receiving the kickoff in OT was not a bad decision.
Quote:
Problem with Shanahan's answer is that he revealed something that is a broader problem with him - he overthinks everything. Why are you thinking 3-4 possessions ahead in overtime of the Super Bowl. Just kick it off, try to get a stop, maybe hold to 3, and go win the fucking game. This whole dance he does with trying to outmaneuver everything is tiresome.
This post explains so much about the way you view so many football topics.
Thinking 3-4 steps ahead is a GOOD thing.
I agree, this is how successful people operate. You think Bill wasnt thinking 3 steps ahead during all those title runs?
There are usually less than 40 seconds to make decisions in between plays. Not thinking ahead likely separates the shitty coaches from the good ones.
Quote:
Problem with Shanahan's answer is that he revealed something that is a broader problem with him - he overthinks everything. Why are you thinking 3-4 possessions ahead in overtime of the Super Bowl. Just kick it off, try to get a stop, maybe hold to 3, and go win the fucking game. This whole dance he does with trying to outmaneuver everything is tiresome.
This post explains so much about the way you view so many football topics.
Thinking 3-4 steps ahead is a GOOD thing.
Agreeing with this feels like piling on, but I can't believe someone actually posted that thinking strategically was a negative trait in a coach that should be corrected.
Start of the game, sure. Overtime to decide the Super Bowl, no.
You can't just use analytic thinking for every single situation.
Thinking strategically is always good. In fact, it should be the norm.
Thinking 4 steps ahead in an overtime period is called overcoaching.
As for OT, why wouldn’t you think of all scenarios, outcomes and probabilities? Imagine the blowback of reports suggesting Shanahan blew off contingency planning for end game scenarios, lol. Come on man.
Disagree, if both teams match on first possesion, it becomes sudden death with you getting the ball first. The thing I don't understand is that I heard Shannahan say that analytics said to take the coin. How the hell would they know, it was the first time the rule was used.
There is nothing to prove he isn’t thinking about the play at hand. This seems like a water cooler talking point than a tangible fact. Reid is the better coach with a better DC and the better QB. That combination is going to win the majority of the time.
Analytics aren't surveying just the historical outcomes in particular scenarios; they're tracking the direct and implied probabilities of a full decision tree from any branch on the tree. This was the first time these rules were used in a game, but all of the micro-scenarios have known probabilities attached to them (likelihood of scoring a TD vs. a FG vs. no points; likelihood of converting a fourth down; likelihood of a turnover, etc.). Those are the basis for the analysis.
When people say that a coin toss carries 50/50 odds, it's not because they flipped enough coins to have sufficient historical data. It's because there is a 50% probability on each of two sides of the coin, which can be calculated without physical observation.
When you watch them in big spots, he does not seem to have a great grasp of the moment.
On the other side, I thought the 49ers did a terrible job of managing that situation. They should have called a timeout. If they weren't aware of the rules, shame on them.
Thinking strategically is always good. In fact, it should be the norm.
Thinking 4 steps ahead in an overtime period is called overcoaching.
Why was it four steps ahead, since that is the bad number?
He wanted to be the team that got the first shot with the ball and a chance to end it. Why is that 4 moves ahead? Sounds like one.
When you watch them in big spots, he does not seem to have a great grasp of the moment.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You just have a lot of them that most people don't understand or agree with. Nobody is telling you that you can't have it.
When you watch them in big spots, he does not seem to have a great grasp of the moment.
Define the big spots. Seems like cherry picking a couple debatable calls in superbowls is the only ammo you have. How about all the other big things he got right? Were the in the moment or planned for ahead of time.
As you can see this is such a dumb thing to talk about with any degree of certainty.
On the other side, I thought the 49ers did a terrible job of managing that situation. They should have called a timeout. If they weren't aware of the rules, shame on them.
Quote:
Managing the OT situation. In particular at the end, I was impressed that they did not let the clock run down and take it to the next OT period. The 49ers were clearly gassed and confused, it was incumbent upon the Chiefs to take advantage of that scenario. If they take it to the next session, who knows, maybe the 49ers recover enough to make a play and create a turnover.
On the other side, I thought the 49ers did a terrible job of managing that situation. They should have called a timeout. If they weren't aware of the rules, shame on them.
It sounds like its you that don't know the rules. They had just used a timeout. The remaining timeouts had to last them for the half, not just the end of the quarter.
So what you are saying is...they had timeouts left. Do they get to take that timeout with them to the offseason?
Quote:
Who didn't know the Chiefs 1st possession would carry over to a 2nd OT quarter?
NOPE.. cause I was screaming
" why arent they taking a timeout !!! "
I had no idea and I think that's a really, really stupid rule. The OT quarter is a full 15 minute quarter. If you allow a 15 minute possession (the longest posession in the last 20 years is 13 minutes by the Giants in 2010), you deserve to lose. If you allow the other team to have the ball long enough that you don't give yourself enough time to score, you also deserve to lose (assuming the original team scores on that posession).
Imagine every game where a team was losing by one score when time ran out went to overtime instead and that team got to keep the ball at the spot where the game ended instead of just ending? Silly.