PossibleCabbage Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 The two basic problems with the "play for the third possession" strategy for Playoff Overtime are: - Unless you are among the best offenses in NFL history, there is a reasonable chance you will not score at all on your first possession, since you're not likely to go for it on 4th and 8 from your own 37. - Short of scoring a touchdown and also a two point conversion, there is no way to guarantee that there is a third possession. But going for 2 and missing it means that a TD and a PAT beats you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 hour ago, PossibleCabbage said: The two basic problems with the "play for the third possession" strategy for Playoff Overtime are: - Unless you are among the best offenses in NFL history, there is a reasonable chance you will not score at all on your first possession, since you're not likely to go for it on 4th and 8 from your own 37. - Short of scoring a touchdown and also a two point conversion, there is no way to guarantee that there is a third possession. But going for 2 and missing it means that a TD and a PAT beats you. I'm confident that Kyle and his staff thought everything anyone on his this has thought about it and more. In their calculations, they determined it would be more advantageous to take the ball first. Just because it didn't work in 1/1 cases doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. In fact, the best data we have suggests there's a TINY advantage (50.3%) in taking possession first. "There is considerable debate about whether or not the 49ers were correct in receiving the ball. Whatever your view, the fact that there are strong reasons for both sides of the debate is evidence this is a good idea. Even better evidence? The analytics back this up that it’s nearly a coin flip which decision is better." https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2024/2/14/24072644/super-bowl-overtime-controversy-rules-kick-or-receive-analytics-playoffs-regular-season It really annoys me that casual fans think Shanahan's decision was bad or something. It's just total nonsense. It's literally the equivalent of criticizing a captain for calling "heads" if it comes up tails. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLcheesehead12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 5 hours ago, incognito_man said: I'm confident that Kyle and his staff thought everything anyone on his this has thought about it and more. In their calculations, they determined it would be more advantageous to take the ball first. Just because it didn't work in 1/1 cases doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. In fact, the best data we have suggests there's a TINY advantage (50.3%) in taking possession first. "There is considerable debate about whether or not the 49ers were correct in receiving the ball. Whatever your view, the fact that there are strong reasons for both sides of the debate is evidence this is a good idea. Even better evidence? The analytics back this up that it’s nearly a coin flip which decision is better." https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2024/2/14/24072644/super-bowl-overtime-controversy-rules-kick-or-receive-analytics-playoffs-regular-season It really annoys me that casual fans think Shanahan's decision was bad or something. It's just total nonsense. It's literally the equivalent of criticizing a captain for calling "heads" if it comes up tails. I don't know about wrong, but we could probably agree could we not that if you opt to receive the ball first in this new version of OT that ... well you probably won't pass up a FG and go for it on 4th down unless you're Dan Campbell or something. Just seems like you kind of have to take the points. If you opt to kick, you see what your opponent is going to do, and you can adjust your play calls accordingly. Now I'm not saying that's always going to pay off. Certainly if you need a TD to stay in it, that could be harder to answer with than a FG. But still, you're probably liking your odds. Gotta say overall ... still feel like this SB got overhyped too much. Oh it was a decent game in the end, was better than some of the most recent and past games, but it still was way behind SBs 31 and 45. Sure I might be biased since those were ours, but they had way better gameflow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) I had the perfect solution to the old sudden death OT rules years ago but unfortunately word never made it to Goodell... No stupid coin toss, fewer games that even go to OT, more aggressively played football for 60 minutes (especially by the team holding the lead), and entirely decided on the field... The team that scores last to tie the game, receives the kickoff to start OT and the first score of any kind wins Buh bye prevent defense that doesn't prevent anything Buh bye predictable 3 runs and out by the team leading and a punt back to the team trailing Buh bye playing not to lose instead of keeping the foot on the gas and playing to win Buh bye coaches turtling into a shell with a lead Buh bye having a coin toss sway the odds in such a dramatic fashion Buh bye debates about fairness of who did or didn't get the ball in OT and how many possessions each team got. Everyone knows the rules. You have the lead, you're doing everything you can right up to the end to hold it. If the trailing team overcomes that and ties the game, they get the ball. They still have to put up back to back scores to win without the opponent ever possessing the ball in overtime. If the team that was leading gives up what would at minimum be the final two scores of the game without getting the ball in OT they really did deserve to lose. There'd be no excuses. A team that chokes away the lead in regulation only needs to avoid giving up the last 2 scores of the game to possess the ball and reclaim their shot at victory. Edited February 17 by Mr Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 15 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: I had the perfect solution to the old sudden death OT rules years ago but unfortunately word never made it to Goodell... No stupid coin toss, fewer games that even go to OT, more aggressively played football for 60 minutes (especially by the team holding the lead), and entirely decided on the field... The team that scores last to tie the game, receives the kickoff to start OT and the first score of any kind wins Buh bye prevent defense that doesn't prevent anything Buh bye predictable 3 runs and out by the team leading and a punt back to the team trailing Buh bye playing not to lose instead of keeping the foot on the gas and playing to win Buh bye coaches turtling into a shell with a lead Buh bye having a coin toss sway the odds in such a dramatic fashion Buh bye debates about fairness of who did or didn't get the ball in OT and how many possession each team got. Everyone knows the rules. You have the lead, you're doing everything you can right up to the end to hold it. If the trailing team overcomes that and ties the game, they get the ball. They still have to put up back to back scores to win. If the team that was leading gives up what would at minimum be the final two scores of the game without getting the ball in OT they really did deserve to lose. There'd be no excuses. A team that chokes away the lead in regulation only needs to avoid giving up back to back scores to possess the ball and reclaim their shot at victory. And who gets the ball first in a game that ends in regulation at 0-0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 17 minutes ago, squire12 said: And who gets the ball first in a game that ends in regulation at 0-0? First, how often has that happened? Second, easy solution. The team that received the ball at the start of the game kicks off in OT. 60 minutes were played in between to break that 0-0 tie. That team that received the ball at the beginning of the game would aggressively try to score before the clock hit zero and the other team would be aggressively trying to avoid losing in regulation. Edited February 17 by Mr Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said: First, how often has that happened? Not sure. But the fact it can means you need to have a process covering said possibility 1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said: Second, easy solution. The team possessing the ball at the end of regulation in a 0-0 tie, kicks off to start overtime. Continues to promote the desire to have a team aggressively try to win in regulation. So it would be ok to be aggressive until a very last second to give the other team possession in order to get the ball first in OT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Just now, squire12 said: Not sure. But the fact it can means you need to have a process covering said possibility So it would be ok to be aggressive until a very last second to give the other team possession in order to get the ball first in OT Thought of that seconds after I hit submit. See my edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: I had the perfect solution to the old sudden death OT rules years ago but unfortunately word never made it to Goodell... No stupid coin toss, fewer games that even go to OT, more aggressively played football for 60 minutes (especially by the team holding the lead), and entirely decided on the field... The team that scores last to tie the game, receives the kickoff to start OT and the first score of any kind wins Buh bye prevent defense that doesn't prevent anything Buh bye predictable 3 runs and out by the team leading and a punt back to the team trailing Buh bye playing not to lose instead of keeping the foot on the gas and playing to win Buh bye coaches turtling into a shell with a lead Buh bye having a coin toss sway the odds in such a dramatic fashion Buh bye debates about fairness of who did or didn't get the ball in OT and how many possession each team got. Everyone knows the rules. You have the lead, you're doing everything you can right up to the end to hold it. If the trailing team overcomes that and ties the game, they get the ball. They still have to put up back to back scores to win. If the team that was leading gives up what would at minimum be the final two scores of the game without getting the ball in OT they really did deserve to lose. There'd be no excuses. A team that chokes away the lead in regulation only needs to avoid giving up back to back scores to possess the ball and reclaim their shot at victory. Anyone who can't see the brilliance and complete fairness of this isn't really thinking this through in its entirety. You can't claim it's not fair to the team forced to kickoff to start OT because they get the ball in OT as long as they avoid giving up what would be at minimum the final two back to back scores to the opponent to lose the game. They do that and they deserve to lose. Play to the end, don't get too conservative. The way a team plays for the first 55 minutes stays consistent to the end. No more football played one way for 55 minutes then an entirely different head scratching way for the final 5. Prevent defense, running straight into the line, kneel downs in a tied game, etc. Edited February 17 by Mr Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 29 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: First, how often has that happened? Second, easy solution. The team that received the ball at the start of the game kicks off in OT. 60 minutes were played in between to break that 0-0 tie. That team that received the ball at the beginning of the game would aggressively try to score before the clock hit zero and the other team would be aggressively trying to avoid losing in regulation. Wouldn't/shouldn't it bethe team that got the ball to start the 2nd half be the team kicking off for OT? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 27 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: Thought of that seconds after I hit submit. See my edit The team that got the ball to start the game can't possess the ball for a full 60 minutes. Halftime causes an end to a drive and a restart of the alternate possessions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 12 minutes ago, squire12 said: The team that got the ball to start the game can't possess the ball for a full 60 minutes. Halftime causes an end to a drive and a restart of the alternate possessions Now you're just nitpicking something entirely inconsequential. You're talking about a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation. The team that received the ball at the beginning of the game kicks off to start OT after playing to a scoreless tie in regulation. Don't think that's fair after going scoreless for 60 minutes and getting first crack at the ball to start the game, then do something about in the first 60 minutes of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 2 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said: I had the perfect solution to the old sudden death OT rules years ago but unfortunately word never made it to Goodell... So stayed it was a perfect solution. If it was perfect, it would have accounted for every situation. It didn't. 52 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: Now you're just nitpicking something entirely inconsequential. You're talking about a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation. The team that received the ball at the beginning of the game kicks off to start OT after playing to a scoreless tie in regulation. Don't think that's fair after going scoreless for 60 minutes and getting first crack at the ball to start the game, then do something about in the first 60 minutes of play. So the team that gets the ball to start the game could get an equal number of possessions in the first half and get 1 less possession in the 2nd half and then be required to kick off so the other team gets another extra possession? Yup, seems very fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, squire12 said: So stayed it was a perfect solution. If it was perfect, it would have accounted for every situation. It didn't. So the team that gets the ball to start the game could get an equal number of possessions in the first half and get 1 less possession in the 2nd half and then be required to kick off so the other team gets another extra possession? Yup, seems very fair A 0-0 tie at the end of regulation and 60 minutes to break said tie is what you're hung up on. Think about that. And the team that received the ball first absolutely had the opportunity to possess the ball more over the course of 60 minutes than the team that didn't, even with the possession at the start of the 2nd half. They had the first chance to dictate the remainder of the game. They were the team with the first scoring opportunity and had the the chance to lead start to finish. Having to kickoff in OT after a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation is a perfectly fair result. But that's waaaay off track from the perfectly fair rule to decide a sudden death OT that was outlined above. There's always somebody who gets off course from the introduction to a new rule. You are that guy. Edited February 17 by Mr Anonymous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 38 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said: A 0-0 tie at the end of regulation and 60 minutes to break said tie is what you're hung up on. Think about that. And the team that received the ball first absolutely had the opportunity to possess the ball more over the course of 60 minutes than the team that didn't, even with the possession at the start of the 2nd half. They had the first chance to dictate the remainder of the game. They were the team with the first scoring opportunity and had the the chance to lead start to finish. Having to kickoff in OT after a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation is a perfectly fair result. But that's waaaay off track from the perfectly fair rule to decide a sudden death OT that was outlined above. There's always somebody who gets off course from the introduction to a new rule. You are that guy. Its a nice idea. It isnt perfect. If you dont like questions, not sure what to tell you. Getting mad about it seems odd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.