OT about OT (NFL postseason)
Ok…help me out here…
I read the NFL summary of postseason overtime this morning, but I am still a bit confused.
Was the Chiefs not calling a timeout near the end of the overtime quarter suicidal bravado, or simply understanding the rules better? Would the game have continued, even though San Francisco was ahead, if time had expired in the OT quarter?
The Niners should have elected to defend, obviously, and they should have…well…defended at some point. But I was baffled by the Chiefs not using another timeout as the last seconds ticked away. I assume it was like a regular game: the possession continues even though the quarter would have expired.
February 12th, 2024 at 12:20 PM ^
Dupe - Deleted
February 12th, 2024 at 9:23 AM ^
Had not thought of that, but absolutely right.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:12 AM ^
Per reporting, it sounded like the 49ers still thought it was sudden death with a TD so wanted to get first crack at it. So sounds like they just made a mistake, though there is incremental value in getting that third possession when it does become sudden death, though it also sounds like the Chiefs would have gone for 2 so it probably wouldn't have mattered.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:18 AM ^
You should know and understand the rules. After all, it was only the Super Bowl.. not a big game, or anything like that.. right?
February 12th, 2024 at 10:10 AM ^
I believe this was the first OT game in the playoffs with the new rules, so I could see how the players might not be fully aware. The fact the coaches may have also not known is a bigger issue.
February 12th, 2024 at 12:22 PM ^
^^^ Exactly. It doesn't take a lot of time to be aware of the issue - and, the coaching staff SHOULD have understood what the rules were.
It doesn't take very long to understand the new rule - and communicate with the team. There seem to be uncertainty - which was a surprise to me.
February 12th, 2024 at 1:03 PM ^
I'm confident the coaches knew. The refs explain the rules at the beginning of OT, anyway.
It isn't an unreasonable decision to take the ball first; they just didn't score a TD and didn't make a stop. Analytics suggest it's almost a total wash between the two, which suggests to me that the NFL has finally found a fair system for the playoffs.
February 12th, 2024 at 3:38 PM ^
Would it make sense to use the same rule for OT in the regular season? I think so.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:23 AM ^
He said he talked to his analytics person and wanted the advantage of the 3rd possession, but yeah I don't believe him. He said the defense being gassed didn't factor into his decision. I just hope Dan Campbell was watching. I'm sure he would have made the same mistake.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:12 AM ^
Yeah, I don't buy the 3rd possession argument either since most teams that score a TD are likely going to go for 2 in that spot to win the game and not risk some 55+ FG getting them.
February 12th, 2024 at 1:16 PM ^
How can you have analytics for something that has NEVER HAPPENED before?
Probabilities are based on something recurring so many times that it is statistically significant to know what the data says. How can there be any analytics on whether to kick or receive in an overtime where the rules have never, ever been played before? No data exists for that situation.
February 12th, 2024 at 1:36 PM ^
I don't know and analytics are based on league averages. Mahomes is far from average.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:32 AM ^
I don't understand the certainty with which everyone is asserting what the "right" thing to do is. One of the more intriguing parts about this format is either decision is justifiable.
Even with the belief that KC would have gone for 2 if it went TD/TD (and I do believe that), SF might sign up for that. It's not like KC was automatic in short yardage.
If SF had scored a TD first, they honestly would have had to make a 2 point decision themselves. I could see going for two on the first TD. Even if you miss, you're still just telling your defense, make sure they don't drive the length of the field for a TD.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:36 AM ^
That corndog play looks pretty automatic. I think with Mahomes and Reid the conversion % of 2 point plays goes way above the average for the league. I agree that the decision becomes more difficult when you aren't playing Mahomes..
February 12th, 2024 at 9:40 AM ^
That play was used to get the TD. Were they going to run it again for the (hypothetical) two point conversion?
They got stopped on short yardage a couple times. They fumbled in the red zone. They also converted short yardage.
Yes, I would like Mahomes and Reid with a 2 point conversion on the line. But nothing is automatic, except the tush push...which actually has been stopped.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:59 AM ^
They ran it twice against the Eagles last year. Seems like it's great play call against a tired defense.
February 12th, 2024 at 5:00 PM ^
Sky Moore touchdown on that play for KC last Super Bowl, I believe.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:39 AM ^
The analytics favor getting the ball first in NFL overtime. You can win the game with a touchdown - and the other team never gets a chance. SF marched to the 8 yard line and could have won the game without Mahomes ever touching the ball in OT.
I am astonished at the universal and inaccurate take in this thread to get the ball second in NFL overtime. If KC scores a TD l, SF would never get the opportunity to possess the ball. I am using both logic and analytics (statistics show team getting ball first wins more often) with this take.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:42 AM ^
You can't have watched the game last night. You have no idea that they changed the OT rules.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:42 AM ^
You are wildly misinformed about the rules for the playoff OT in the year 2024.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:52 AM ^
Thank you - I stand corrected. I needed to listen better to the new rules! That ref was so unenthusiastic and drab - I just tuned him out. My take above deserves all the negs it can get. I will neg myself to start it off.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:58 AM ^
I don’t think the ref explained anything. I think they flashed the rules before the toss on the screen which is how I knew.
February 12th, 2024 at 9:43 AM ^
I just learned this also isn't true- KC would still get the ball after a TD.
Way to play Calvinball, NFL...
February 12th, 2024 at 9:57 AM ^
Yep. They changed the rule. This was the first OT playoff game under the new rule.
I don't understand the defer case unless the weather is terrible and your defense is better than your offense.
The college advantage of knowing what you need to match or beat by deferring is negated (and more) by having the third possession when it's sudden death.
I didn't like SF's play calls when they got close. I thought they should have been thinking TD all the way - the run was working again by that time and they had run twice to get it to 3rd and goal from the 4. You call two plays in the huddle and if you don't get the TD - at least you've backed them up far enough that Mahomes has to be extra careful against those DEs.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:15 AM ^
Sure, there's an endless debate. I do suspect that if you score first you're going to kick that FG because of the potential for that 3rd possession. If you're the second possession I think there's less incentive to give the ball back because there's no assurance you'll see it again.
If there's an issue it's that SF rather clearly thought there was a chance for them to end the game in OT without giving KC the ball and that wasn't true.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:14 AM ^
The new rules are odd. It's fairer than the old way, but how long do you want these games to go on?
I think I prefer the college method even if it eliminates punting.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:18 AM ^
It's more fair to let one team get the ball and score TD to end the game? That might be the most unfair outcome in sports.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:23 AM ^
I think you misread my post.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:26 AM ^
Yes I did.
February 12th, 2024 at 11:22 AM ^
Agreed. The college way is much better. Would love to see the NFL do that but just start the possession at midfield instead of the 25.
February 12th, 2024 at 5:23 PM ^
Joker, I agree, except I say start on the minus-40 (60 yards away from the end zone) so that it's not a FG try if the offensive team gains zero yards.
February 12th, 2024 at 10:19 AM ^
A couple of years back, I put a lot of time into studying the effect of the regular overtime rule.
That was a guaranteed possession unless the opponent scored a touchdown on its first possession.
They changed it after the game two years ago when the Chiefs beat the Bills in the divisional round in a crazy 42-36 game that featured three touchdowns and a field goal AFTER the two-minute warning.
Kansas City won the OT toss and marched it in for a touchdown far more easily than they did last night.
It was kind of the perfect example of the coin toss being too important.
However...
By then, there was a lot of data on the overtime rule. And it turned out that the coin toss wasn't that important - they had found a very good balance there.
In a game where offenses dominate, like Kansas City/Buffalo, perhaps the new tweak improves the fairness of the rule. It's hard to say. Since playoff games can't end in a tie, I see the case for it. You want to avoid the appearance of a bad luck result based on the coin toss.
I like this better than the college overtime process. But college has the additional pressure that a regular-season tie game is often so damaging that a winner needs to be decided even if they have to go to the equivalent of penalty kicks.
February 12th, 2024 at 11:10 AM ^
KC's Oline was holding like it was Valentine's day....
February 12th, 2024 at 11:19 AM ^
Your assumption is correct. The clock was irrelevant because of OT rules.
February 12th, 2024 at 11:49 AM ^
OT is stupid but there is no better way to do things really. I actually have grown to like the college way. It's just simpler.
February 12th, 2024 at 3:08 PM ^
Yes, a second QTR would have been added as long as the Chiefs controlled the drive. They had the opportunity to complete their matching offensive drive, according to the new rules.
February 12th, 2024 at 3:14 PM ^
I’m curious to know how the calculus changes at the extremes - either a score every possession BIG12 shootout on one side and a Big10 West rock fight on the other.
If you are scoring at will, take the ball first because the 3rd possession is incredibly valuable.
If you are in a defensive slugfest, hope for the stop on the first possession, get decent field position for the 2nd and go for the FG to win.
February 12th, 2024 at 5:02 PM ^
The reason to get the ball first is for the scenario where both teams score the same in their first possessions (whether 3, 6, 7, or 8 points), the team that got ball first would get the ball again with the opportunity to win the game with any score. If you go second, you have to win in first possession or you give other team chance to score winner without opportunity to respond once both teams have had ball once. It is a different setup than college OT even though there are similarities.
I heard KC would have gone for 2 to win if SF had scored 7 with first possession to avoid scenario where SF gets balls after both teams scored 7 with opportunity to end game with any score.
February 12th, 2024 at 8:18 PM ^
If I'm SF, I want to limit the number of times Mahomes can win the game. That means taking the ball first as long as I think I can score - and in this game, they clearly should believe that.
If SF gets the TD, then worst-case KC gets the matching TD and has to decide between the 96% extra point and possibly never seeing the ball again, or the 45% do-or-die for two.
If SF gets the FG, then both teams know they're in 4-down territory and play accordingly.
The bottom line is that if you don't think you can stop the Chiefs, then it doesn't much matter what you pick. It's similar to the when-to-go-for-two analysis - if you *know* KC is scoring, your chances of winning are small, so the choices are merely very small deltas to a small number.
Really, the only certainty is that the losing side will get armchair-second-guessed to oblivion.