OT Coin Toss = 49'ers Demise? (3 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

Personally I think high schools have the best OT rules. Both teams line up on the 10 yard line and go at it.

I hate this. Complete disadvantage to the defense, and takes punting out of the game. I really hate college also.

Teams should still have to defend the whole field and play regulation football, not some lazy made-up mini-game.

JMO

 

[Joey bourque]

Nah, it’s dumb. You’ll never convince me the 3rd possession is the one you play for. You control the game by deferring. You know exactly what you have to do with the 2nd possession.

And if you have the nuts to do it, no team that gets it first is going to go for 2 after an TD. Ever. You can be down 7, and go for the win by going for 2. It requires a boatload of testes, but you have that in your pocket.

Shanahan didn’t even get to the 3rd possession. That’s why you don’t play for the 3rd possession. You play for a possession that you never see? Dumbest move in SB history. The excuse of the “3rd possession”. Dumb.

Never let MaHommes have the ball last. Stupid move. Kick the ball to KC. I guarantee that KC would have punted on that 4th down. By giving them a must score possession means that go for it on all 4th downs. Dumbest move U ever seen

 

[Joey bourque]

Straight from Shanahans mouth:

"We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third."

So you play prevent on KC possession conceding a possible FG. I'm glad it backfired and now you let all your players down

 

[DaveXA]

So you play prevent on KC possession conceding a possible FG. I'm glad it backfired and now you let all your players down

Again, we don't know what happens the other way around either. It's easy to second guess with hindsight. This is nothing more than Monday Morning Coaching. And statistically, as someone pointed out, the odds are pretty even whether you get the ball first or last.

Now, if I'm coach and I have Mahomes, I'm hoping we get the ball last because Mahomes is one of the best ever under pressure. He knows how to win games late.

But still, no one knows what would have happened if the roles were flipped. Maybe KC wins anyway, or maybe something else happens. It's all hypothetical.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Straight from Shanahans mouth:

"We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third."

Ok, if thats the case, i concede that the mentaltiy was wrong ... but the decision was irrelevant.

If KC got the ball first, let's say they go down the field and score a FG ... Shanahan still probably plays conservative and would not go for on 4th down in field goal range

Defenses can make plays too. It should not be too much to expect your defense to at least prevent a touchdown. The blame goes both ways

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I hate this. Complete disadvantage to the defense, and takes punting out of the game. I really hate college also.

Teams should still have to defend the whole field and play regulation football, not some lazy made-up mini-game.

JMO

Meh, its still football and involves the entier team. Unlike soccer and hockey where it comes down to a 1-1 skills competition

Personally I think they should have both teams line up each others 2 yard lines, and have a single down to get into the end zone. And keep alternating until one team scores and the other doesnt

The kickers can take a seat. They decide enough games

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

This was a game of poker. Shanahan showed his cards, pure and simple.

 

[Artifactual]

According to that particular sports expert crunching numbers, there is a 50.29% advantage taking the ball first. That's negligible, so it truly doesn't matter. And think about it, how many times have you seen the team in college football not be able to match the first team's score? It happens all the time. According to this stat, slightly more often than being to match it. But again, the numbers say it really doesn't matter, it's 1/10th of a percent better than 50/50 shot to take the ball first. Negligible, doesn't matter.

What does matter is being able to outcoach your opponent, which Andy Reid did. Basically every pass in the OT was to a wide open receiver because Reid schooled the 9ers' defensive coordinator. If the 9ers had been able to cover those guys, none of this discussion would be happening. Give credit/blame where it's due.

9ers lost on some questionable decisions (like not just trying to get a first down on 3rd and 4 instead of taking a shot at the end zone to a covered receiver; not to mention practically abandoning the run throughout the second half until the last few minutes of the fourth quarter), but the coin toss decision wasn't one of them. Their defense was gassed; giving them rest instead of sending them right back on the field made all kinds of sense. And the mathematics of the decision to receive or defer simply shows that it's truly a toss up. But it came down to Reid knowing how to take advantage of the 9ers secondary in OT.

What makes this guy an expert? I call BS. How can he arrive at this percentage when there is no prior data? What we now know for sure is that it is 100% the wrong decision based on 1 of 1 as well as all the other reasons that have be pointed out in this thread. I wonder what the Vegas oddsmakers have to say about it.

For all who keep talking about the SF defense being gassed and the right decision was to take first possession to give them a breather ask yourself this. Did the breather stop the Chiefs from scoring a TD? Nope. You can bet that KC would not have went for it deep in their territory on 4th down had they had first possession. They would have punted away and played defense. They had to go for it 4th down. No other choice. They were in 4 down mode the moment they got the ball.

Several of us who are emphatic that the correct decision is to defer and take 2nd possession have stated over and over numerous reasons why there is an overwhelming advantage to do so. Let's summarize the pros and cons of each.

1st possession:

1. You take first possession and go down and score either a FG or a TD. The 2nd possession team now must at least match in order for game to continue.
2. You take first possession and allow your defense a chance to gets a breather while you are in possession of the ball.
3. If both teams are tied after possessions 1 and 2 you now have possession 3 with only a FG needed to win the game.

2nd possession

1. You play defense and get a turnover that puts you in field position to win and eliminates a 3rd possession by the team who had first possession.
2. You play defense and make the team with first possession punt. You then only need a FG to win the game and everyone knows it.
3. You limit the team with first possession to a FG. You now know that's all you need to continue the game, however a TD wins the game.
4. The team with first possession scores a TD. You now know scoring a FG won't keep you in the game so you play 4 down football to stay in the game.
5. The team with first possession scores a FG. You now know all you need is a FG to stay in the game but you could go for it on 4th to score a TD and win,
6. If the team with first possession didn't score at all the 2nd possession team has the choice to play 4 down football or punt the ball away and play defense.
7. If the team with first possession scores a TD they most likely kick the PAT. 2nd possession team knows it must score a TD but could also go for 2 for the win.
8. If a 3rd possession comes about your defense just got rested while you last had possession that ended in a score to tie the game to continue playing on.
9. If 2 overtime periods come to an end with the score tied the team who at first was 2nd possession now gets the ball to start the "2nd half" or 7th quarter regardless of who was in possession of the ball when "quarter #6" ended, and now only needs to score a FG to win the game.


I don't see more than the 3 reasons above to take 1st possession. If there are, what are they?

There are probably more than the 9 reasons I listed to take 2nd possession. 2nd possession advocates feel free to add to my list.

I agree with 44slayer in that as the rule stands, I don't think any coach in the future of the playoffs/Superbowl will take first possession.

As far as those that say the coin toss and choice of 1st possession didn't cost the 9ers the game and that it had more to do with coaching I can agree with the point about coaching. The 49er players were unaware of the new rule and had not been briefed by Shanahan about it. I don't think he had fully evaluated the pros and cons of first or second possession. He definitely didn't have a "game plan" in place for it or he would have explained it to his players. In the past first possession was a no brainer as a TD scored would result in a walk off win (see Patriots/Falcons). Maybe that was a guiding factor in his decision to take first possession. I just can't buy the playing for 3rd possession nonsense and if so, what did that get him? No 3rd possession. Rested defense allowed walk off TD. No trophy.

Contrast that with Any Reid. He had a plan and had discussed it with his players. They said that he would have taken 2nd possession and would have played 4 down football and if matching a TD was required, he would have also gone for the 2 point conversion for a walk off win.

Coaching does matter. Reid has guided the Chiefs to 9 consecutive playoff seasons and eight consecutive division titles while winning 3 Superbowls in the last 5 years. As much as we remember Spags having a record setting poor defense as the Saints defensive coordinator he is respected by Reid and his defenses have been a part of the winning culture with the Chiefs the past 5 years.

 

[44slayer]

What makes this guy an expert? I call BS. How can he arrive at this percentage when there is no prior data? What we now know for sure is that it is 100% the wrong decision based on 1 of 1 as well as all the other reasons that have be pointed out in this thread. I wonder what the Vegas oddsmakers have to say about it.

Right. They choose to point to the analytics that dont exist over the actual concrete information that a team can gain by deferring. When you defer, the entire game is in front of you. You get the information of exactly what it takes to win the game. So many coaching decisions are made for you, you take the guesswork out of nearly every situation on the 2nd possession. But this guy has created analytics based on, Im assuming playing Madden a few times. And then someone reads those garbage analytics, and uses them as their defense as to why its not a clear cut decision to defer. If you come away with that believing that the right move is to take the ball first, I just dont know what to tell you. I just know every coach saw that, and you will not see another coach take the ball first again. It was that egregious a move.

Its indefensable. If Shanahan planned to do this, its even worse. The idea of playing for the 3rd possession is about as cowardly a move as you can make and you probably dont deserve to win the SB. Which is why Andy Reid is filling his fingers up and Kyle Shanahan has 2 mega chokes in the SB.

 

[DaveXA]

What makes this guy an expert? I call BS. How can he arrive at this percentage when there is no prior data? What we now know for sure is that it is 100% the wrong decision based on 1 of 1 as well as all the other reasons that have be pointed out in this thread. I wonder what the Vegas oddsmakers have to say about it.

For all who keep talking about the SF defense being gassed and the right decision was to take first possession to give them a breather ask yourself this. Did the breather stop the Chiefs from scoring a TD? Nope. You can bet that KC would not have went for it deep in their territory on 4th down had they had first possession. They would have punted away and played defense. They had to go for it 4th down. No other choice. They were in 4 down mode the moment they got the ball.

Several of us who are emphatic that the correct decision is to defer and take 2nd possession have stated over and over numerous reasons why there is an overwhelming advantage to do so. Let's summarize the pros and cons of each.

1st possession:

1. You take first possession and go down and score either a FG or a TD. The 2nd possession team now must at least match in order for game to continue.
2. You take first possession and allow your defense a chance to gets a breather while you are in possession of the ball.
3. If both teams are tied after possessions 1 and 2 you now have possession 3 with only a FG needed to win the game.

2nd possession

1. You play defense and get a turnover that puts you in field position to win and eliminates a 3rd possession by the team who had first possession.
2. You play defense and make the team with first possession punt. You then only need a FG to win the game and everyone knows it.
3. You limit the team with first possession to a FG. You now know that's all you need to continue the game, however a TD wins the game.
4. The team with first possession scores a TD. You now know scoring a FG won't keep you in the game so you play 4 down football to stay in the game.
5. The team with first possession scores a FG. You now know all you need is a FG to stay in the game but you could go for it on 4th to score a TD and win,
6. If the team with first possession didn't score at all the 2nd possession team has the choice to play 4 down football or punt the ball away and play defense.
7. If the team with first possession scores a TD they most likely kick the PAT. 2nd possession team knows it must score a TD but could also go for 2 for the win.
8. If a 3rd possession comes about your defense just got rested while you last had possession that ended in a score to tie the game to continue playing on.
9. If 2 overtime periods come to an end with the score tied the team who at first was 2nd possession now gets the ball to start the "2nd half" or 7th quarter regardless of who was in possession of the ball when "quarter #6" ended, and now only needs to score a FG to win the game.


I don't see more than the 3 reasons above to take 1st possession. If there are, what are they?

There are probably more than the 9 reasons I listed to take 2nd possession. 2nd possession advocates feel free to add to my list.

I agree with 44slayer in that as the rule stands, I don't think any coach in the future of the playoffs/Superbowl will take first possession.

As far as those that say the coin toss and choice of 1st possession didn't cost the 9ers the game and that it had more to do with coaching I can agree with the point about coaching. The 49er players were unaware of the new rule and had not been briefed by Shanahan about it. I don't think he had fully evaluated the pros and cons of first or second possession. He definitely didn't have a "game plan" in place for it or he would have explained it to his players. In the past first possession was a no brainer as a TD scored would result in a walk off win (see Patriots/Falcons). Maybe that was a guiding factor in his decision to take first possession. I just can't buy the playing for 3rd possession nonsense and if so, what did that get him? No 3rd possession. Rested defense allowed walk off TD. No trophy.

Contrast that with Any Reid. He had a plan and had discussed it with his players. They said that he would have taken 2nd possession and would have played 4 down football and if matching a TD was required, he would have also gone for the 2 point conversion for a walk off win.

Coaching does matter. Reid has guided the Chiefs to 9 consecutive playoff seasons and eight consecutive division titles while winning 3 Superbowls in the last 5 years. As much as we remember Spags having a record setting poor defense as the Saints defensive coordinator he is respected by Reid and his defenses have been a part of the winning culture with the Chiefs the past 5 years.

Again, all of this is based on hindsight or some guesswork. We don't know that KC would have run into a 4th and 1, or punted on a first possession. Maybe the outcome isn't any different either way. KC made the right calls at the right time. Next time, the outcome might be different. Who knows?

The odds were always pretty even whether you go first or second in previous iterations of overtime. The team who plays better in the OT period whether they win the toss or not is usually going to win.

All things being equal, yes it's probably better to defer. But not all things are equal and some things coaches will weigh heavier than others. I tend to think SF wasn't going to win in OT either way because Mahomes was gonna do his thing regardless. And he did.

I tend to think coaches will defer in the future, but I think over a long period of time, the outcomes will be pretty close to 50% like it's been in the past in other formats.

 

[44slayer]

Again, all of this is based on hindsight or some guesswork.

Several people have laid out the pros and cons and its clearly, CLEARLY tilted in favor of deferring. Its not guesswork, or hindsight. The hindsight only strengthens it. Honestly, going with 'hindsight' is just a cop out. Some people just feel the need to defend something, just to defend it. Despite if failing miserably in front on 128 million people. Quoting a guy who has 'analytics' in a situation that has 1 actual occurrence is kinda bizarre. Theres just no way to logically say its in any way, shape or form beneficial to take the ball first. Not in this format. He pulled those numbers completely out his you know what.

But not all things are equal and some things coaches will weigh heavier than others. I tend to think SF wasn't going to win in OT either way because Mahomes was gonna do his thing regardless. And he did.

Shanahan claims he made the decision before the game to take the ball first if theres overtime. So he technically didnt weigh anything from a situational standpoint. Im not sure how you can allege theres factors that make you go one way or another, but the dummy said he made the decision prior to the game. He doesnt even say the right words, much less make the right decision when it matters.

I tend to think coaches will defer in the future, but I think over a long period of time, the outcomes will be pretty close to 50% like it's been in the past in other formats.

You wont see another coach take the ball first. Youll never see that stat. The outcomes will never get close to 50 50, because it wont happen again. Shanahan took it on the chin so no other coach has to.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

@44slayer

You're looking at the game entirely from an offensive point of view. As if the opposing defenses are all just there for show

The flip side of this argument about "knowing what you need to do to win" also applies to the defense.

I just don't see how its that great of an advantage. Its entirely psychological.

But because of this one data point, I think that coaches will probably always elect to get the ball second, as they do most of the time when winning the toss to start the game - although some do choose to receive and there seems to be no clear advantage/disadvantage.

Also, I'm trying to find what the records are in college for teams that get the ball first, and if coaches always choose to elect to defend fist. While not exactly the same, because you don't have to drive the full length of the field, and its never sudden death (equal possessions), the same logic would seem to apply that you want to get the ball second so you "know what you need to do to win".

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

@44slayer @Artifactual @Joey bourque

Ok you guys have me convinced ...

The key issue is the two point conversion, and the situation.

Its like in baseball, they throw out analytics in the postseason and go more with gut feeling and old school thinking. Because the postseason is different.

The problem is you can't win the game on the first possession. And unless you score 8 points, the other team always can win on the second. And no one is going for two if they score a touchdown on the first possession.

And you don't give Mahomes the chance to win the game on the second possession, even if technically its like a 70% chance you win or whatever if you score a TD on the first drive (basically KC touchdown probability * two point conversion probability, assuming they go for two which they probability would).

But this isn't any other game, its the Superbowl and Mahomes is going to will the team to victory if he has a chance. So even if you score 7 on the first possession, KC is going to for 8 because they know they probably can't stop you from getting a field goal on the 3rd possession

And you have Brock Purdy, so....

This is like Pete Carrol throwing from the one yard line while Marshawn Lynch's butt is getting cold on the bench. We don't give a crap about what the analytics say in a situation like that

 

[DaveXA]

Several people have laid out the pros and cons and its clearly, CLEARLY tilted in favor of deferring. Its not guesswork, or hindsight. The hindsight only strengthens it. Honestly, going with 'hindsight' is just a cop out.

It is hidsight tho. You can call it whatever you want, its still your opinion. The declarative statements you keep making about hypotheticals speaks for itself.

Some people just feel the need to defend something, just to defend it. Despite if failing miserably in front on 128 million people. Quoting a guy who has 'analytics' in a situation that has 1 actual occurrence is kinda bizarre. Theres just no way to logically say its in any way, shape or form beneficial to take the ball first. Not in this format. He pulled those numbers completely out his you know what.

That wasn't my quote, so I don't know why you're on about that. The bottom line is, in spite of the NFL continually tweaking the rules, the coin toss overall has been relatively inconsequential. Usually, the team who plays better is going to win regardless. I predict and expect that trend will not change much.

Shanahan claims he made the decision before the game to take the ball first if theres overtime. So he technically didnt weigh anything from a situational standpoint. Im not sure how you can allege theres factors that make you go one way or another, but the dummy said he made the decision prior to the game. He doesnt even say the right words, much less make the right decision when it matters.

I don't really care what Shanahan did or didn't do. That isn't relevant to this discussion.

You wont see another coach take the ball first. Youll never see that stat. The outcomes will never get close to 50 50, because it wont happen again. Shanahan took it on the chin so no other coach has to.

You keep repeating it and we already agreed, we'll see.

 

[Artifactual]

@44slayer @Artifactual @Joey bourque

Ok you guys have me convinced ...

The key issue is the two point conversion, and the situation.

Its like in baseball, they throw out analytics in the postseason and go more with gut feeling and old school thinking. Because the postseason is different.

The problem is you can't win the game on the first possession. And unless you score 8 points, the other team always can win on the second. And no one is going for two if they score a touchdown on the first possession.

And you don't give Mahomes the chance to win the game on the second possession, even if technically its like a 70% chance you win or whatever if you score a TD on the first drive (basically KC touchdown probability * two point conversion probability, assuming they go for two which they probability would).

But this isn't any other game, its the Superbowl and Mahomes is going to will the team to victory if he has a chance. So even if you score 7 on the first possession, KC is going to for 8 because they know they probably can't stop you from getting a field goal on the 3rd possession

And you have Brock Purdy, so....

This is like Pete Carrol throwing from the one yard line while Marshawn Lynch's butt is getting cold on the bench. We don't give a crap about what the analytics say in a situation like that

So here's someone who gets it and lays it out a bit differently proving you don't need a translator to read the tea leaves.

Good Post!