Skip to main content

@H5 posted:

2nd possession has the advantage. Knowing what is needed for the win, and 4 downs everytime to get a first, changes play calling. If 1st possession is a TD, 2nd possession has to match, and I expect that team would go for 2.

That's not really true though. If "knowing what you need for the win" is really the focus then receiving first, you know how to win. TD + 2pt, plus field goal on your second possession if necessary. There's essentially no counter for the kicking team.

What you're saying is a slam dunk if it's just one possession each. I like your 'hack' of just going for two if you're second, but it doesn't preclude the initial receiver from going for two to begin with.

But let's ignore the touchdowns scenario. You still have to consider the traded field goals. Both teams scoring field goals on their possessions is an obvious advantage for the initial receiving team. You can try to 'hack' that scenario as the initial kicking team and just say "well hey, I won't kick a field goal, we're going for a TD because that's what we need to win", and that's fine. Maybe even a good strategy when all is said and done. But you have to factor in the scenario where you could have kicked a field goal, but went for it anyway, and now you lost the game despite essentially matching the initial receiving team's offensive output.

It's an analytics problem (that I assume a guy like The Rat is well aware of). And the answer is probably going to depend on the input variables.

My intuition still tells me that taking the ball first for the most part is the right move but I haven't done the actual math.

@ammo posted:


  • If the score is still tied at the end of an overtime period — or if the second team’s initial possession has not ended — the teams will play another overtime period. Play will continue regardless of how many overtime periods are needed for a winner to be determined.
  • https://operations.nfl.com/the.../nfl-overtime-rules/

Okay, I read the rules as listed on the link Ammo posted and I’m more confused.

If the isn’t OT period would have ended before KC scored would they have still had the ball at the same point on the field to start the second OT period ( just like going from the first to second quarter) or would they have started a whole new OT with a new coin toss and everything? See the rule that refers to the team that lost the first toss making the choice. If they started a brand new OT, what would happen to SF’s field goal?

I assume OT would just continue, but why the rule about a second coin toss meeting. My assumption was always that 2 OT’s would equal a half and they’d start over in the 3rd OT, but I don’t clearly get that from the rule.



EDIT: I read the rules again and the last bullet point mentions a second coin toss after the fourth OT period, so maybe they would have to play four consecutive quarters before retossing, but it sure isn’t clear and the third bullet point doesn’t help make it any clearer.

Last edited by justanotherpackerfan

why the rule about a second coin toss meeting. My assumption was always that 2 OT’s would equal a half and they’d start over in the 3rd OT, but I don’t clearly get that from the rule.

I'm pretty sure that's correct. But yes it's very weirdly worded. I think in the 2nd OT quarter you'll have a 2 minute warning. Then 3rd OT quarter is a reset with the loser of the original coin toss (or the deferrer) making the kick/receive choice. But there's no intermission, and mercifully no more Usher between 2OT and 3OT.

Last edited by 4 Favre

Agree 100% Although.....not sure the guys can maintain that intensity for 17 games plus playoffs...

@R MaN posted:

Mark Tauscher, on today’s Wilde and Tausch said San Francisco should have deferred in OT. Saying that the team that does, has a monster advantage.  

I've heard a number of people say that, but I'm not so sure.

If the other team scores on the first drive you then know what you have to accomplish to re-tie or win. That's nice.

If the score goes back to a tie, however, then you have the ball in a first score wins scenario.

A random observation:

I'm not sure we watched the best 2 teams in the league play yesterday.

I don't want to disrespect what each team accomplished to compete in the Owl, but neither team looked dominant. They were pretty evenly matched.
The Chefs had a definite advantage at the most important position, and their defense had a slight overall edge, and that's what made the difference.


I thought neither team looked dominant was because of the 4 turnovers which kept the score down. 382 and 455 yards of total offense is more predictive of a game in the 30s. I thought the difference in the game was Chris Jones, who just seems to come up with big plays when needed, that often go unnoticed.

@Boris posted:

Agree 100% Although.....not sure the guys can maintain that intensity for 17 games plus playoffs...

The best teams in the NFL are also the least penalized teams.  So if the 2 best teams are playing in the Super Bowl it only makes sense that there should not be as many penalties as called in regular season games between mediocre teams.

@Floridarob posted:

i was confused at the end of the game when it got to the final seconds. If KC does not score with 3 seconds left does the game continue into a new quarter as long as KC has the ball? I kept screaming to call a time out.

If the clock ran out, there, the new quarter would start. Screwy rules. I was wondering if teams would have to switch ends of the field, like they do at the end of a quarter, in regulation.

Found on the internet:

In my opinion, after last night Andy Reid solidified himself as the greatest coach ever in NFL history after his win in Superbowl LVIII.

He built two contenders, one in Philly and now one in Kansas City. Although they didn't win a Superbowl in his time in Philly, they were always a team to reckoned with and if Donavon Mcnabb had done a little more in big games, the headlines would have been much different.

He revitalized Michael Vick's career and turned him into Comeback player of the year in 2010. Made the playoffs 9 out of 14 years in Philadelphia and went to 5 NFC title games and a Superbowl.

What he has done in Kansas City is simply astonishing. 8 straight division titles. 3 Superbowl victories in 5 years. Reid now has 26 postseason wins and has no plans of retiring. This year they didn't have the talent as other years on both sides of the ball. But they had Andy Reid. This was his best coaching job ever and there is truly no end in sight for what he can accomplish.

Found on the internet:

If the Chiefs defeat the San Francisco 49ers Sunday in Super Bowl LVIII, Spagnuolo will break a tie with four other coaches and become the first four-time Super Bowl-winning coordinator on either side of the ball.

Kansas City Chiefs' defensive coordinator will coach in his sixth Super Bowl, his fifth as a coordinator. He devised the Giants' defensive game plan that suffocated the record-setting New England Patriots offense in Super Bowl XLII.

Spagnuolo has won two more Super Bowls in his five seasons with the Chiefs to become the only offensive or defensive coordinator to win Super Bowls in that role with multiple franchises.

@Herschel posted:

I've heard a number of people say that, but I'm not so sure.

If the other team scores on the first drive you then know what you have to accomplish to re-tie or win. That's nice.

If the score goes back to a tie, however, then you have the ball in a first score wins scenario.

And people keep saying that taking the ball second is a massive advantage but have yet to see any data backing it up.  My guess is that it is a minor advantage, maybe.  And when it's a minor advantage, analytics become less important on one off type situations like Super Bowl OT and you need to weigh variables like a tired defense more significantly.  Fact is, the 49ers lost this game b/c of a blocked PAT, a muffed punt, and having Patrick Mahomes on the other side.  Not because of taking the ball in OT.  It's just an easy talking point to fill space in the vast market of sports talk radio. 

But it is beyond stupid for these 49ers to come out saying they didn't know the rules.  First, did Kyle Juszczyk not knowing the rules affect his play?  No.  Second, I have to assume they thought it made them look better, like "hey man I didn't know I'm just a player this maybe was why we lost who knows" but the reality is, Juszczyk looks like an unprepared idiot.  He's paid $4m per year, he needs to know he rules and be prepared for every game he plays.  He didn't and that's on him.  Why admit that? 

@YATittle posted:

Found on the internet:

In my opinion, after last night Andy Reid solidified himself as the greatest coach ever in NFL history after his win in Superbowl LVIII.



With Belichick struggling mightily after Brady left, Reid is definitely making the case.  His teams exceled with 4 QBs - McNabb, Vick, Smith, and Mahomes.  3  Super Bowls championships.  Made like a dozen AFC/NFC championships.  Developed McNabb and Mahomes (and McNabb sucked when he left Reid).  Revitalized Smith and Vick.  There is no doubt that Reid could go to any random team in the league and they would be significantly better.  Just not sure you can say that about Belichick without Brady after watching the last 3 years. 

Worth mentioning. Guy’s challenging Justin Tucker as the best ever.

@FieldYates:   What a freaking season from Harrison Butker this year:

▫️44-of-46 on all field goals (95.7%)
▫️15-of-15 on field goals of 40+ yards
▫️7-of-7 on field goals of 50+ yards
▫️46-of-46 on extra points
▫️2 field goals from 50+ yards in the Super Bowl
▫️the longest field goal in Super Bowl history (57 yards)

@FLPACKER posted:

I thought neither team looked dominant was because of the 4 turnovers which kept the score down. 382 and 455 yards of total offense is more predictive of a game in the 30s. I thought the difference in the game was Chris Jones, who just seems to come up with big plays when needed, that often go unnoticed.

Three of those were good defensive plays made on the ball which reflects both team's elite defenses.  This was a defensive game, at least in the context of the modern high scoring, rules geared toward offense NFL.

Top D + Top QB/mid O vs Top D and Top O/mid QB.

Though the teams differed they matched up very well.  Close game.

@ilcuqui posted:

Worth mentioning. Guy’s challenging Justin Tucker as the best ever.

@FieldYates:   What a freaking season from Harrison Butker this year:

▫️44-of-46 on all field goals (95.7%)
▫️15-of-15 on field goals of 40+ yards
▫️7-of-7 on field goals of 50+ yards
▫️46-of-46 on extra points
▫️2 field goals from 50+ yards in the Super Bowl
▫️the longest field goal in Super Bowl history (57 yards)

Are you saying special teams matter?

@mrtundra posted:

How about on Holidays? Are they open then? There must be some times that they have to lock up.

I must clarify.  Pre Covid, the 2 local Walgreens were open 24/7/365 including holidays.  Basically they never closed.

Don't know if that's the case now.

And now I'm probably being pedantic.

Last edited by EC Pack
@EC Pack posted:

I must clarify.  Pre Covid, the 2 local Walgreens were open 24/7/365 including holidays.  Basically they never closed.

Don't know if that's the case now.

And now I'm probably being pedantic.

our local ones did too. but then they decided they can't compete with CVS so started closing earlier. And I don't know what pedantic is. But I guess i am too.

@CUPackFan posted:

With Belichick struggling mightily after Brady left, Reid is definitely making the case.  His teams exceled with 4 QBs - McNabb, Vick, Smith, and Mahomes.  3  Super Bowls championships.  Made like a dozen AFC/NFC championships.  Developed McNabb and Mahomes (and McNabb sucked when he left Reid).  Revitalized Smith and Vick.  There is no doubt that Reid could go to any random team in the league and they would be significantly better.  Just not sure you can say that about Belichick without Brady after watching the last 3 years.

Reid also had a significant role in Favre's best years. Holmgren was the main guy, but Reid was probably the second most important person on that mid-90s Packers offensive staff.

@FLPACKER posted:

I thought neither team looked dominant was because of the 4 turnovers which kept the score down. 382 and 455 yards of total offense is more predictive of a game in the 30s. I thought the difference in the game was Chris Jones, who just seems to come up with big plays when needed, that often go unnoticed.

Chris Jones made the plays that Rashan Gary and Aidan Hutchinson didn't when the Niners played the Packers and Lions.

Just like Aaron Donald made plays that prevented the Bengals from beating the Rams two Super Bowls ago. Burrow had a walk-in go-ahead TD pass to Chase late in the 4th quarter that Aaron Donald prevented from happening by just pancaking the OL from across from him.

The only advantage of deferring in a sudden death overtime I can see is you know you have 4 downs to make a first if you're trailing. That might broaden the playbook in a few circumstances. .eg 3rd & 5 at your own 30. Usually a called pass but 2 downs to make 5 yards keeps the run as an option.

I think most coaches would choose to have the lead over an extra play option or two while trailing.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×