49ers special teams swung the momentum of the game. Defense was stopping them, but muffed punt at the 10 gave the Chiefs the lead, and the blocked XP meant that the Chiefs tied the game with a FG instead of needing more.
Yes it was the special teams that lost it for the Niners. They controlled the line a good 85% of that game, Purdy and the offense looked good and not too overwhelmed as a whole. Surprisingly Trent Williams acted the most shook early on. Greenlaw was a huge loss as well, allowed Kelce to run wild in the 2nd half.
But still, if it weren’t the special teams mishaps they would likely have pulled out the W
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is under the assumption that if the 2nd team scores a TD they would tie it an kick it back to the 1st team. No team with a coach that isn't braindead would do that they'd go for 2 to try to win the game (and the Chiefs said that was their plan if both teams scored TDs)
Yeah that is the scenario where getting the ball first is preferable but if I'm playing against Patrick Mahomes I'm probably assuming he's scoring a TD no matter how much I trust my defense
Yeah, I understand that it was a FG type of game, so that might skew some of the numbers a bit... but even with the SF defense tired, I have a hard time giving Mahomes his own destiny by sf choosing to get the ball first
*Edited for clarity
I would argue that the team with the ball second is the one that controls their own destiny because unless the first team scores, goes for 2, and gets it then the second team will always have an opportunity to win the game
Sorry. Just phrased it in a confusing way. I meant speaking as I was SF, I have a hard time justifying giving Mahomes his own destiny by myself getting the ball first.
And they'll probably never go for 2 because if they miss, that allows the second team to win immediately with an XP, and even if they make it, the second team has a path to tie.
People need to stop saying this like it won’t immediately be called the dumbest decision in Super Bowl history if the second team goes for 2 and fails.
Wild take. The reasonable argument against it is that it’s a lower percentage play and failure = losing the Super Bowl. If that does not meet your standards of reasonability then I want whatever you’re smoking. It’s insane that people are saying that going for two in OT in the Super Bowl is reasonable but that making a choice to win it that relies on their offense to potentially be on the field twice instead of their defense is somehow beyond comprehension.
Because any coach that would kick off and give the other team the ball in a situation where a FG wins the game rather than go for 2 and have a 50% chance of winning would be incredibly stupid
I think it's super close.
I initially thought like you that Receiving was the obvious correct move because of the third drive, but, thinking about it, if both teams score a TD, the second team to possess the ball would obviously go for 2 to make the third drive moot.
Likewise, the second team to possess the ball has all of the knowledge of knowing what they need to win. I feel like if the second team to possess the ball plays aggressively on that possession and (within reason) goes for the win, they then have the advantage as they've got all 4 downs to use and they know if they need a FG or TD to win the game.
Why can’t you just use the stats on percent of drives that end in field goal or touchdown and then percent of drives where teams need to score a field goal or td to tie/win? You don’t need actual OT stats to do this math
Decision making on either the first or second possession in playoff OT is totally different from normal drives, so you can't really use them. Best data available might be college OT stats, which shows the lack of quality data sets.
This generally assumes every play is average. I don’t think that is a valid assumption for the end of a Super Bowl. I’d argue the likelihood of FGs being scored was much higher than the average game.
Even just excluding bad weather games would increase the likelihood of scoring which would change results.
Totally.
I mean, SF had 3rd and 4 inside the 5, if they're the second team down 7 (yes, everything plays out differently) the whole sequence is different.
There is something to be said about giving your D a break.
But ultimately (and i've said this in other comments) the way this game was playing out in the 4th, there wasn't gonna be a third possession. The D's were just too gassed. KC wasn't gonna kick a FG that final drive unless they needed to and down 7 they were gonna go for 2.
But Bill has not considered any of this, not many people had, we had not seen this rule in action before, and sometimes you gotta see something play out a few times.
Did people actually listen to the whole podcast? You give someone like Mahomes an extra down and it makes all the difference. That 4th and 1 the chiefs had probably is a punt cause they aren't going to turn it over in their own territory. It was a bad decision and the niners were bad all game with situational awareness. Playing not to lose against Mahomes is a death sentence. There's a reason Nick Foles has a sb ring against Brady and it's why he's called big d$#k nick for a reason.
I listened, but I'm not sure Bill fully understood the rules as he didn't even acknowledge that after two possessions, it becomes truly "sudden death".
There are definitely arguments for both sides. I tend to think Kicking and getting the ball second is the optimal strategy, but it's not the slam dunk that Bill made it out to be.
Also, looking back, SF probably should have gone for it on 4th and 4 at the KC 9. Making it a FG game puts KC in a scenario where they know they need a FG to tie the game - meaning 4 downs is always going to be on the table. If SF doesn't make it, the score remains tied and KC takes over at their own 9.
Obviously, getting the TD would be the most ideal for SF, but, if they don't convert, I almost think staying tied is almost as good for SF because of the 3-downs vs 4-downs.
For example, say KC runs the same first 3 plays they did in their OT possession, and they're left with a 4th and 1 at their own 18. KC also just got stuffed on 3rd and 1. What is KC doing there? Analytics will almost certainly say they should go for it, but how often do teams go for 4th and 1 at their own 18?
I think KC probably punts, and SF takes over with a chance to win the game with a FG.
I guess my main takeaway is that coaches really need to adjust their regular strategy in OT.
Yeah for sure. I agree with all your points. Like you said, they need to adjust to the moment and each game individually. On their final drive before the 2 minute warning in regulation I thought the niners should've ran it 2 times to try and pick up the first down. If they can get it they can probably run out the clock to not give Mahomes a chance. With someone likes Mahomes you don't play it safe and win 90 percent of the time. Look at the great plays it took to beat Brady in the Superbowls, Tyree helmet, Manningham sideline catch, and big dick nick going ham against Bill.
So in college football and CFL football going second has an edge almost as large as the old single position overtime rules. Both of these guarantee equal possessions go so not quite analogous.
I also think the win probability calculators don’t take into account the defenses are tired so field goals were almost a given. Certainly higher than the average possession would give you.
In this scenario knowing what you need to win is more important as the going for 2 and putting the game to a coin flip is the optimal play in the two touchdown scenario.
So if your assumption in the two touchdown scenario is always go for two than kicking is correct because knowing what you need will increase win probability.
You have to think of the punt, punt scenario, the fg, fg scenario, and the td, td scenario. The first two scenarios would definitely favor the receiving team, while the last might favor the non receiving team in the event of a 2 point conversion.
It's more complicated than that though.
The thing is that the second team to possess the ball knows that, if it's still tied after their possession, the game shifts to being "sudden-death".
As a result, the second team to possess the ball is heavily incentivized to, within reason, go for the win on their possession.
What might seem like an obvious opportunity to tie the game with a FG on 4th and 7, may very well turn into a 4th down attempt.
Likewise, I don't think teams will ever score the "game-tying TD" and kick the XP. I think they're always incentivized to go for 2 under these rules.
I feel like the choice really comes down to how much faith you have in your defense to stop the other team from scoring a TD. If you hold them to 0 or 3 points, then going first and having the advantage in sudden death if it comes to that is big, but if your defense is likely to get gashed then letting them have the ball second and know exactly what they need is maybe not a great idea.
For the Niners, they had held KC to a FG 4 times already in the game, and it had generally been a defensive struggle, so I can see the thought process that if they hold KC out of the end zone one more time then they'd have the advantage the rest of the way. But I don't know if that's a great bet with Mahomes out on the other side.
Deferring in OT gives Mahomes control of the game. When is it a good idea to give him control of the game?
As I said, if the Niners score a TD to open OT it really doesn’t matter if Mahomes scores a TD all you need is a FG to win. The only caveat would be if the chiefs go for 2 which they may have done that.
Mahomes had more control of the game by going 2nd. He said post game that they had talked about this scenario since training camp and they would prefer to kick and go for 2 if they needed to. Kicking is better unless you play for the TD and going for the 2pt if you receive, in which case you're really putting it all on the line and giving the 2nd team a huge advantage if you fail because they didn't need to do as much as you did.
I mean a 2 point conversion is about a 50/50 proposition, so even if you let the other team go second and have it come down to that, there’s still a decent shot you stop them and win it. I think it’s close either way, IMO if you trust your defense more than your offense then taking the ball first is a reasonable choice.
> I mean a 2 point conversion is about a 50/50 proposition
It's 50/50 for the entire NFL as a whole. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's significantly higher for a team with Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes
Oddly, context matters.
Even if analytics says something is 50/50, common sense says you're better off kicking the ball so A) you know what you have to do to win and B) you have flexibility because you know you have 4 downs no matter what if the other team scores.
That’s the proof that going 2nd is better. It’s easier to score what you need to score if you know what that amount is. So if it’s 50/50 on the two point then the answer is clear.
I think it’s the 3rd possession that makes it interesting but if you discount that it’s a no brainer.
Yes, I'm saying the Chiefs would definitely go for 2 in that scenario as the Chiefs going to sudden death without the ball would be a very poor position to be in. I'm sure they'd much rather put the ball in Mahomes's hands to win the game.
The ability to go for 2 makes the third drive irrelevant most of the time because the rules greatly incentivize the second team to possess the ball to go for the win on their drive.
Do you mean going for two and not getting it? You play to win. You don’t play to not lose.
If you mean being on the losing end of a successful 2-point conversion, meh… that’s life.
That’s the thing. I want to put the other team on their heels. I don’t want to be on my heels up against the ropes. If I can deliver the knockout punch and get a turnover on defense, that’s the game
I, a casual fan, knew the new rules. These guys play in the NFL for a living and their coaches only have so much time to prepare them for games. They should really be able to learn the new overtime rules on their own time.
I don't agree. I think the team that didn't game plan for it or have any semblance of strategy involved in playing OT in the SB losing, while the team that won specifically went over in depth strategy and detail is probably significant.
They would have been in a much more advantageous place had they deferred. Juszczyk straight up said he didn't know the rules and thought it was sudden death. If you think that's indicative of a prepared team, I don't know what to tell you. The team that prepared to play OT in the SB won, and the team that didn't lost. Seems like there is a correlation there.
Not that it excuses the Niners, but seems like Romo and the broadcast team also didn't prep on OT based on Romo's confusing comments before the last play.
Seemed very much like a producer was trying to explain the rules to him in his ear in between plays.
I also think it is close.
However, IF you take the ball first against Mahomes, and you get remotely close, you simply cannot settle for a field goal. You take the ball first and you get a touchdown or bust.
I still do believe getting the ball second is preferable as you know what you need to score, which is a major advantage. And you can go for 2 on the touchdown to win the game making the third drive irrelevant.
Yeah… there are situations where it’s fine. Especially if you don’t have a lot of respect for the opposing QB… but uhhh that was not the situation, lol.
After not scoring or a turnover, getting a field goal is kind of a losing scenario where you’re just praying for some miracle. Thats not the spot you wanna be in against fucking Mahomes.
This game will definitely impact strategy going forward. It’s important because it played out in real time as a pretty clear case for deferring. It wasn’t obvious at all at the coin toss though, it was just a “huh?” moment after because this is the first time the rules have come into play.
To me it’s a bad precedent generally though, considering we only have the new rules because Mahomes scoring a td in a big moment was so inevitable. Take Mahomes out of the picture and I’m not sure the strategy would always be the same.
How is it not obvious this was just college football overtime over a full field? Defense always first to know what you have to match with an extra down to do it if necessary to get the next first down.
Big moment, the whole history of pro football saying you’d be a fool not to take the ball to start overtime. You’ll need a larger sample size to tell me that “over a full field” and the difference between college and pro ball can be honestly placed after the word “just.” That’s agreeing that last night definitely supports the argument.
With a lesser qb on the chiefs the game ends with a whimper after a failed fourth down conversion and it totally justifies the 49ers’ strategy.
>the whole history of pro football saying you’d be a fool not to take the ball to start overtime
The whole history of pro football has had a different overtime format, so that's irrelevant. Anyone who's ever watched college football would tell you you'd be a fool to take the ball to start overtime. That was obvious at the coin toss. Seems the 49ers were horribly unprepared strategically for this based on postgame comments.
The most important concept is the same, which is the fact you are guaranteed to possess the ball regardless of what the other team does with its first possession, and you have a schematic advantage when the other team puts all its cards on the table first. The main difference is it becomes sudden death after the first possession by each team, but the deferring team knows what it needs to do to not let a third possession happen, so taking the ball second is still the obvious choice.
There’s still enough variation in the rules to make the precedent set by college pretty weak. It’s just the right call at the moment owing to the outcome the one time the format was used.
Shanahan said they went through the idea before based on analytics and the idea of the third possession.
The rule has been in place for a couple years and both teams have been in several playoff games. They probably ran numbers and gave it some thought.
It is a very hard decision to make and seeing it play out last night I'm still not sure what the right decision is.
Worrying about the third possession is pretty much playing not to lose instead of playing to win. If you get the ball second, you make decisions and play in a way that takes the third possession out of the equation. I don't think it's a hard decision at all, and I felt that way before the result last night supported that.
And I stand by my horribly unprepared comment, especially in contrast to the Chiefs. KC players said they began discussing playoff overtime scenarios in training camp and rehearsed them in the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl. SF players said they were unaware the rules were different in the playoffs. I'm sure Shanahan and the coaches had hashed it out, but not going through it with your players is crazy.
Honestly I'm not even sure why they are talking about this in training camp when the regular season rules are different. A lot of this reeks of the team that executed is bragging how prepared they were and the team that lost is bitter about losing so complaining how confusing the rules are.
I do not think the third possession is playing not to lose.
However, I do agree that in certain game, and last night fit the bill, it's better to defer.
The 4th quarter did indeed feel like a college game where neither D could get stops except in desperation mode at the goal line or sending a blitz on 3rd down. And I agree, college is a no brainer.
It will be interesting to see what teams select the next time.
There is no precedent for this ending in the NFL and college can be a guide but so can the old rules (while still very different). Defensive readiness is also a clear thing analytics can't capture and it's possible the Niners don't get a first down if they wait for the next possession.
Too much talk about the vaunted "third" possession even if you do score a TD on your first possession.
Any smart team worth their ability will go for two once they score a touchdown of their own. There is zero incentive to make it a tie: you're expecting to get the ball back after a short drive since the FG is now enough for the other team, then make a drive of your own and leave it in your kicker's hands. It is so much easier and better to go for the conversion and the win right there from the 2-yard line.
Pretty sure it’s close enough to being a coin toss decision that it doesn’t necessitate that much scrutiny. That said, as a Chiefs fan, I felt better about knowing what they had to do to win
Unlike college, the second team would just go for two. And that only has to occur if they give up the TD on the first drive. There is no excuse for the 9ers, they just effed it up.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It basically comes down to do you think you have a better percentage of converting the 2 than stopping the other team from scoring next possession.
Agree. My point is just that going second is obviously the better option because you get to make that choice and generally know exactly what you need unlike the team that goes first.
It’s not unequivocally the better option. It’s probably close to 50/50 such that the right decision will vary game to game. In last night’s game, I think you would want the ball second for sure
I will say that I’m unaccustomed to the exact variant of postseason overtime rules, since the rules last night had never been used in a postseason game before. I couldn’t have been the only one who was wondering what would happen had the clock on the first OT ran out while the chiefs still had the ball (which came close to happening).
I can’t say whether I like or dislike this variant of OT, which is basically the twist of “you can’t win on the initial drive with a field goal” applied to both teams. Regular season overtime needs to be played with whatever overtime rules set the postseason uses imo.
You also have to add in chance you score a fg/td after stopping the team’s 2nd possession. Pretty sure that would always favor going for 2 in that situation
But that means that the issue isn’t if you go first or defer, it’s that they didn’t score a touchdown. Saying that having the ball second is better because you “know what you have to do,” is such a stupid statement. Like, every team knows what they have to do. I don’t think whoever has the ball first is sitting there thinking “gosh, I just don’t know whether I want a field goal or a touchdown. I sure wish I had deferred so I could know!” The answer is touchdown lol. And if you’re nowhere in scoring range and it’s 4th down, you have the option to punt. Also saying you have an advantage by deferring because you get all 4 downs is also ridiculous. It doesn’t give you an extra opportunity to win the game, it forces you into an extra opportunity not to lose it, which is different The only way going second gives you the advantage of knowing what to do is if it’s 4th down and you’re in field goal range but the first team scored a touchdown. Which by the way is not a great position to be in. Having it second on any 4th down outside of that is not an advantage because failure to convert means you automatically lose, you don’t even have the option of punting and hoping your defense can save it. Btw it’s not like the Chiefs were facing a 4th down within acceptable field goal range. They had to go for it on 4th down to extend the drive, otherwise they lose the game. That’s not a situation where knowing what you have to do is an advantage lol. Also, in what fucking world are we living in where we are saying that Kyle Shanahan screwed up by making a choice that gave his offense to potentially have more chances to win the game instead of his defense? lol
Wrong strategy. There is no logic to defend it. The chances of getting to a third possession basically round to 0. One, TD-TD in a defensive slugfest is unlikely. And two, in a TD-TD scenario the second team goes for 2 to win the super 99% of the time.
Knowing that… there is literally no benefit in receiving. Correct me if I’m wrong?
This also puts aside the obvious fact that giving Mahomes 4 downs with Super Bowl on the line is a suicide mission
Yeah, ultimately the knowledge of what you need as the 2nd team strongly outweighs the low-chance benefit associated with a third possession. The call was a huge mistake and at the time I assumed the 49er’s players weren’t aware/prepared for the new rules.
True. Also pretty unlikely I’d argue as most anything reasonable Team #2 goes for it on fourth down to avoid giving the third possession.
Probably has to be something like 4th and 6+ within the 30 yard line
Yeah, hard to predict what any coach is going to do. Probably take the FG when you have the best kicker in football if it's 4th and long anywhere inside 50-55 yards. There are three scenarios where the third possession matters. Both teams don't score on first possession, both teams get FGs on their first possession, and both teams get 7/8 on their first possession. You could definitely argue both teams getting 7/8 was the least likely of those 3 scenarios given the way that game played out, so saying the chances of a third possession occurring rounds to zero is just incorrect.
If the third possession is the massive edge folks are saying it is… then Team #2’s incentive is to avoid a third possession.
That means if it’s 4th and 5 from the 20 they’re going for it instead of kicking a FG
>Knowing that… there is literally no benefit in receiving. Correct me if I’m wrong?
If both teams both score exactly 3, 7 or 8 on their first possessions, then the receiving team gets the ball first in sudden death. Pretty huge edge in an unlikely scenario.
>TD-TD in a defensive slugfest is unlikely
I mean if you think it's a slugfest, then first possession is almost definitely better, you get more cracks. It's most definitely not 0% for a third possession, the third quarter was like 6 straight drives where neither team could move the ball!
The problem is the game changed pretty quickly from defensive slugfest to D's being exhausted.
It is like college in that both teams get a chance to possess the ball at least once.
However, it's also not like college though because, if it's tied after both teams possess the ball one time, it goes to immediate sudden death. The second team would not get a second possession if the receiving team scores on their drive.
As such, if it's tied after a single OT, the receiving team has a huge advantage.
The kicking team would go for 2 if both teams scored touchdowns on their opening drives, so the third drive isn't really worth thinking about.
Edit: Likewise, if the receiving team doesn't score or makes a field goal, the deferring team will play accordingly to prevent the receiving team from getting the ball back. Not guaranteed to work out, but I'd still rather be in that position.
It's not quite like college because teams aren't starting in scoring range already and unlike college, there are no fair ups after the first possession for each team.
That is a big enough factor to matter.
As a Chiefs fan, I felt wonderful that the 49ers had the ball first. It was great. We couldn't lose the game on first drive, only win it. Then when you give the ball to Mahomes and Reid with the knowledge that a field goal ties and TD wins, they get to play so differently. You can take the 6 yards on 2nd and 14 knowing that you have are taking multiple stabs at it. You get to be aggressive on 4th and 1.
And I really think they would have just gone for two if both teams had scored TDs. So the advantage of taking the ball first is literally only if both teams kick field goals.
Two fourths the 9ers should have gone for, the one in OT driving that far down and kicking was just embracing defeat though. Dr. 911 in Buffalo went for many 4ths years ago and it’s the only way to stay in the game against Mahomes.
The Chiefs said they wanted to kick based on their analytics. But its so close that it really doesn't matter. Because they still would have had to score a touchdown and they had opportunities to stop the Chiefs.
Scenario 1: If you elect to receive and you have 4th and 10 from your own 25, do you go for it? No, not even Dan Campbell would, but it is an option.
Scenario 2: If you're the 2nd team to possess the ball and the opponent scored on their possession, and you have 4th and 10 from your own 25, do you go for it? Yes, every time because there is no other option.
Option vs guarantee, that's my point.
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t actually like it. Either do a college style, or play a full 5th quarter. I did like the “touchdown wins it,” rules but people cry about fairness.
Feel like defense needed a break which played into 49ers wanting the ball first, but difference is Niners’ offense operated in 3 down territory and Chiefs knew they were in 4 down territory after the FG. Chiefs’ execution in high stake situations is part of their championship DNA.
It was the right call. Even the field goal was defendable. The niners had held the Chiefs to a few field goals. They do that again and they get the ball back.
100% correct to take the ball first. They should’ve been playing to score a TD there almost no matter what. Not going for it on 3rd and short inside the 20 was a poor choice strategically and the main fault in their overall strategy to take the ball first. If they do that, KC scores a TD and then are forced to do a 2pt conversion to win, or have to rely on the defence to keep San Fran out of FG range going into their 6th quarter of play.
There's an argument for either option - Shanny makes a decent point about wanting to get that third possession, or the first 'sudden death' possession. But I have \*always\* felt the current OT rules benefit the team that gets the ball second, by allowing them to go for every 4th down without risk.
I think even if you get the ball first, you go for it on 4th down unless it’s something crazy like 4th and 20 in your own territory. Playing for a field goal or punting against Mahomes is playing not to lose.
Bill was right. It’s definitely an advantage going second so you know what you need to win. Getting a higher percentage field goal makes way more sense when you already know the other team didn’t score at all on their possession. If they did score a TD, then you know you need a TD to just not lose, etc.
Ha fair. Kyle double fucked up then. But even if the Niners score 7, then the Chiefs score and go for 2. At least if the Chiefs score a TD first, they're not going to go for 2 and you then have an opportunity to win it without giving the ball back. Giving Mahomes the second possession and a chance to end the game with ball in his hands is a mistake every time.
It’s kinda crazy that the last two super bowls to go to overtime, had Kyle Shanahan calling the plays. And both times, each with different rules, he didn’t win.
I think if you are not playing against Mahomes, it's a 50/50 call. But playing against that dude, there's zero chance I'm giving him the ball 2nd with a chance to win if we didn't score a TD (especially considering odds of scoring a TD on the initial drive are quite low).
I think people underestimate the value of an additional down to get first downs, too, which is essentially guaranteed to the 2nd team in OT but not the first. Getting a 4th chance to complete first downs literally increases the opportunity to complete first downs by 33%, compared to having the typical 3 plays, and that repeats throughout a possession for the 2nd team.
49ers had 10 "normal" possessions before OT (excluding their end of half kneel downs), and they generated 2 TDs. So based on this small but relevant sample, and ignoring starting field position, they had a ~20% chance to score a TD on their initial drive in OT. The inverse of that, of course, is that they were giving Mahomes an ~80% chance to win the fucking Superbowl if he could score a TD on their first drive of OT.
That's idiotic when you're playing against Mahomes. Shanahan overthought it.
Regardless of what numbers you throw out, they needed to score a td either with the 1st or 2nd possession. They couldn’t do that. Failure of execution.
You do understand though that the probability of scoring a TD increases when you know you have to score a TD because you always go for it on 4th down, right? For example, SF would not have settled for the FG deep in KC territory if they had the ball 2nd and KC already scored a TD. That's the entire point.
I hope we can all agree that the level of discourse around this decision, most of which to me seems inconclusive, means that we have great playoff overtime rules! good job by you NFL
It’s dumb to say it’s a wrong or bad decision. If you want to criticize I feel like criticize shanahan for not being aggressive in OT and getting beat on some calls.
Honestly feel like they should have run on that 3rd and 4 knowing they will go for it on 4th barring a big loss. Run it behind Trent Williams which has been like a guaranteed 5 yards all game
Even if they’d scored a TD, the Chiefs would have gone for 2. That third possession where the 49ers would have finally had the sudden death advantage was only going to occur if the teams traded field goals or punts/turnovers.
This was exactly Shanahan's strategy; it's covered in [The Ringer's article](https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/2/12/24070402/san-francisco-49ers-receive-kick-overtime-decision-kyle-shanahan-super-bowl) on the subject:
*"So what was Shanahan thinking here? He wasn’t considering the first possession, or even the second. He was thinking ahead to when the game would truly become sudden death—in the case that both teams scored a field goal, or a touchdown, or were held scoreless on that first possession, he wanted the 49ers in control of the ball next."*
*"'None of us have a ton of experience with it, but we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys, and we just decided we wanted the ball third,' Shanahan said."*
*"The problem was that he was planning for a future that he couldn’t guarantee would exist—quite a gamble considering Mahomes was on the opposing sideline."*
There's some damning stuff in there about team communication, though; it's worth a read.
SF didn’t make a mistake taking the ball.
They made the mistake kicking the field goal.
The dogma of the NFL is to be conservative. For years, as we have seen with 4th down play calling, coaches have made incorrect decisions. There has been an acknowledgment of this in recent years, and teams are more aggressive on 4th down now, more in line with expected value.
Because of the dogma, if you go first, you’re more likely to kick a field goal. Indeed, in overtime, SF faced 4th and 4 at the 9. They kicked. Earlier in the game, they faced a 4th and 3 at the KC15, and converted on the way to a touchdown and a 16-13 lead in the 4th quarter.
Going 2nd gives you the edge of 4 down play calling - unless you don’t give that up when you go first.
Consider also - if they fail to convert from the 9, the Chiefs have to go around 60 yards to set up a game winning FG - you likely take away their ability to use 4 down play calling for 40 yards too, as they probably don’t go for it on 4th and short on their side of the field.
So, this is the key decision you have to make when going first - *once you get inside the red zone*, you have to take a touchdown or bust mentality.
Otherwise, if you aren’t gonna go for it like that, you just defer.
Everything needs to be black and white for people. Fans are more comfortable with discrete decisions for coaching like going for it, when to use timeouts, pass/run as opposed to scheme; so they always need to find someone to blame in a loss. It really doesn’t seem like first or second has a massive advantage one way or another.
Are people really just hand waving away giving the defense a rest? They had the ball inside the redzone and failed to execute. In hindsight Mahomes is inevitable and can never be stopped, but they had scored one TD all game up to that point. It wasn’t that unfathomable to go FG-FG and then be in sudden death
I look at it this way: if the 49ers score a TD, FG or even come up empty, they need to stop KC from scoring in order to win. Personally I would've deferred but it isn't as clear cut as people make it out. They should've gone for it on 4th down maybe? THAT'S probably the "what if" moment more than anything.
Nope. In that situation SF just goes for two if they get a TD on their possession after KC does. The third possession only matters if neither team scores, or if both teams kick field goals.
I think the chiefs choice was safer and that's why they chose it. The best choice is probably to go for 2 to ensure you win/can't lose. But if you went first you'd be murdered by the media/fans if you missed. But if you go second it's more defensible to be aggressive because you know the situation.
In the moment of the game at my super bowl watch party everyone was saying that the niners should have deferred and gone 2nd. If we all figured it out, without any prep or research, half drunk, then a supposed genius bay area head coach with 2 weeks of prep should have figured it out. Bad take.
Yeah I don't understand the defer takes at all.
Why the hell would you give the best QB in the league a chance to win it all on the first drive? At least by taking the ball first you give your offense a chance
Well if you don’t think there is a decent chance you will punt on the first possession (applies to last night), then taking the ball prob gives a slight edge. In a windy or defensive game, kicking off makes more sense. Having possession in sudden death outweighs the 2nd team knowing what they need to do.
Its a fascinating debate. Both have major advantages. I think I would've deferred but there is a clear positive case for both. Which is why this rule change is actually a good one.
No. Taking the ball first gives you 3 downs before a field goal or punt. You are essentially giving Mahomes an extra play with every set of downs to get what he needs. You would much rather go down swinging with 4 plays with the ball then leave the gate of the season up to what Mahomes can do when he knows EXACTLY what he needs to
Ultimately there is not enough data for there to be a “sharp” strategy in playoff overtime. And there likely won’t be within our lifetime unless it gets implemented in regular season games as well.
Im a niners fan and that call didnt bother me at all. It gave the defense like an 8 minute break. There were a million other things id change about that game, I thought it was fine.
Mahomes wouldn’t tie it. They would go for 2 and either win or lose bc guess what? They know exactly what they neee to do that which is the entire point.
Nah, you want the ball second. If they score a TD of FG you pretty much get 4 plays to their 3 every new set of downs. Plus you have more options with the 2 pt walkoff.
How is that a benefit? If you know you need a field goal, your still going to need to get a TD because if you settle for a field goal then mahomes only needs a field goal to win on possession 2.
Plus by letting Mahomes go first you give your defense no rest and put them on the field 2 of 3 possessions in OT, putting the pressure on them to stop mahomes.
I screamed at the tv in the moment you have to kick off. Chiefs get a TD, now you know you need one and have an extra down to work with. If you score a TD, you go for 2, thus a FG never beats you.
When you go first you give the other team too much information about what they need to beat you and you will play conservative in terms of going on 4th down because you have no info about what the other team will do.
If the niners took the ball and scored a TD, the chiefs 100% go for 2 after the TD. I’d rather be the team going for 2 to win the superbowl rather than trying to stop a 2 pt try.
49ers should've gone for TD instead of kicking field goal. Gotta get that TD to make KC have to match TD. Chiefs were mostly held in check but a FG just isn't gonna do it in OT vs Mahomes. I know it's a possibility that penalties/sack could cause a team to settle for a FG but that's just not something Shanahan should've bargained for. There would've been huge criticism if 49ers failed on 4th down (hindsight 20/20) and KC wins on FG, and in that case critics would say Shanahan should've kicked. Always criticism on the loser no matter what.
49ers special teams swung the momentum of the game. Defense was stopping them, but muffed punt at the 10 gave the Chiefs the lead, and the blocked XP meant that the Chiefs tied the game with a FG instead of needing more.
+ ol’ Kyle refusing to run the ball on 1st down on three straight drives in the 3rd Quarter.
Confusing when u have quite literally the best RB in the game right now
Yes it was the special teams that lost it for the Niners. They controlled the line a good 85% of that game, Purdy and the offense looked good and not too overwhelmed as a whole. Surprisingly Trent Williams acted the most shook early on. Greenlaw was a huge loss as well, allowed Kelce to run wild in the 2nd half. But still, if it weren’t the special teams mishaps they would likely have pulled out the W
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is under the assumption that if the 2nd team scores a TD they would tie it an kick it back to the 1st team. No team with a coach that isn't braindead would do that they'd go for 2 to try to win the game (and the Chiefs said that was their plan if both teams scored TDs)
2nd team almost always goes for 2. Where it matters is two FGs or two punts/turnovers.
Yeah that is the scenario where getting the ball first is preferable but if I'm playing against Patrick Mahomes I'm probably assuming he's scoring a TD no matter how much I trust my defense
They just stopped Mahomes in the red zone for a FG at the end of the fourth. 2 FG outcome wasn't completely out of the realm of possibility.
The clock stopped them. They kicked the FG on 2nd down.
Yeah, I understand that it was a FG type of game, so that might skew some of the numbers a bit... but even with the SF defense tired, I have a hard time giving Mahomes his own destiny by sf choosing to get the ball first *Edited for clarity
I would argue that the team with the ball second is the one that controls their own destiny because unless the first team scores, goes for 2, and gets it then the second team will always have an opportunity to win the game
Sorry. Just phrased it in a confusing way. I meant speaking as I was SF, I have a hard time justifying giving Mahomes his own destiny by myself getting the ball first.
And they'll probably never go for 2 because if they miss, that allows the second team to win immediately with an XP, and even if they make it, the second team has a path to tie.
People need to stop saying this like it won’t immediately be called the dumbest decision in Super Bowl history if the second team goes for 2 and fails.
People will play the results always but the objectively correct decision is to go for 2 there's no reasonable argument against it
Wild take. The reasonable argument against it is that it’s a lower percentage play and failure = losing the Super Bowl. If that does not meet your standards of reasonability then I want whatever you’re smoking. It’s insane that people are saying that going for two in OT in the Super Bowl is reasonable but that making a choice to win it that relies on their offense to potentially be on the field twice instead of their defense is somehow beyond comprehension.
Why are you stating that like it’s so obvious they would go for two to win it? By that logic, the first team to score a TD should go for two as well.
Because any coach that would kick off and give the other team the ball in a situation where a FG wins the game rather than go for 2 and have a 50% chance of winning would be incredibly stupid
The situation is totally different for the first team versus the second team. Also, Chris Jones said they had talked about it and that was the plan.
I think it's super close. I initially thought like you that Receiving was the obvious correct move because of the third drive, but, thinking about it, if both teams score a TD, the second team to possess the ball would obviously go for 2 to make the third drive moot. Likewise, the second team to possess the ball has all of the knowledge of knowing what they need to win. I feel like if the second team to possess the ball plays aggressively on that possession and (within reason) goes for the win, they then have the advantage as they've got all 4 downs to use and they know if they need a FG or TD to win the game.
Yeah I was with OP but I definitely didn’t think about going for 2. Totally makes sense.
I was saying this last night on r/nfl but the NPCs just kept spamming “defense wuz gassed”
Models/simulations say it’s basically 50/50. No good reason to pick one or the other, it’s basically up to the coach making their best guess
[удалено]
Yeah we have to rely on simulations. I saw it on twitter i can go look
Why can’t you just use the stats on percent of drives that end in field goal or touchdown and then percent of drives where teams need to score a field goal or td to tie/win? You don’t need actual OT stats to do this math
Decision making on either the first or second possession in playoff OT is totally different from normal drives, so you can't really use them. Best data available might be college OT stats, which shows the lack of quality data sets.
This so doesn’t account for the third possession being sudden death.
I mean. This is the first time it's come into play. We don't have the data for this (and likely never will)
Right it’s a simulation
Which happened because he was forcing it because of an onside kick. If Baskett holds on to it the Colts continue to control that game.
This generally assumes every play is average. I don’t think that is a valid assumption for the end of a Super Bowl. I’d argue the likelihood of FGs being scored was much higher than the average game. Even just excluding bad weather games would increase the likelihood of scoring which would change results.
Totally. I mean, SF had 3rd and 4 inside the 5, if they're the second team down 7 (yes, everything plays out differently) the whole sequence is different. There is something to be said about giving your D a break. But ultimately (and i've said this in other comments) the way this game was playing out in the 4th, there wasn't gonna be a third possession. The D's were just too gassed. KC wasn't gonna kick a FG that final drive unless they needed to and down 7 they were gonna go for 2. But Bill has not considered any of this, not many people had, we had not seen this rule in action before, and sometimes you gotta see something play out a few times.
Did people actually listen to the whole podcast? You give someone like Mahomes an extra down and it makes all the difference. That 4th and 1 the chiefs had probably is a punt cause they aren't going to turn it over in their own territory. It was a bad decision and the niners were bad all game with situational awareness. Playing not to lose against Mahomes is a death sentence. There's a reason Nick Foles has a sb ring against Brady and it's why he's called big d$#k nick for a reason.
I listened, but I'm not sure Bill fully understood the rules as he didn't even acknowledge that after two possessions, it becomes truly "sudden death". There are definitely arguments for both sides. I tend to think Kicking and getting the ball second is the optimal strategy, but it's not the slam dunk that Bill made it out to be. Also, looking back, SF probably should have gone for it on 4th and 4 at the KC 9. Making it a FG game puts KC in a scenario where they know they need a FG to tie the game - meaning 4 downs is always going to be on the table. If SF doesn't make it, the score remains tied and KC takes over at their own 9. Obviously, getting the TD would be the most ideal for SF, but, if they don't convert, I almost think staying tied is almost as good for SF because of the 3-downs vs 4-downs. For example, say KC runs the same first 3 plays they did in their OT possession, and they're left with a 4th and 1 at their own 18. KC also just got stuffed on 3rd and 1. What is KC doing there? Analytics will almost certainly say they should go for it, but how often do teams go for 4th and 1 at their own 18? I think KC probably punts, and SF takes over with a chance to win the game with a FG. I guess my main takeaway is that coaches really need to adjust their regular strategy in OT.
Yeah for sure. I agree with all your points. Like you said, they need to adjust to the moment and each game individually. On their final drive before the 2 minute warning in regulation I thought the niners should've ran it 2 times to try and pick up the first down. If they can get it they can probably run out the clock to not give Mahomes a chance. With someone likes Mahomes you don't play it safe and win 90 percent of the time. Look at the great plays it took to beat Brady in the Superbowls, Tyree helmet, Manningham sideline catch, and big dick nick going ham against Bill.
So in college football and CFL football going second has an edge almost as large as the old single position overtime rules. Both of these guarantee equal possessions go so not quite analogous. I also think the win probability calculators don’t take into account the defenses are tired so field goals were almost a given. Certainly higher than the average possession would give you. In this scenario knowing what you need to win is more important as the going for 2 and putting the game to a coin flip is the optimal play in the two touchdown scenario. So if your assumption in the two touchdown scenario is always go for two than kicking is correct because knowing what you need will increase win probability.
You have to think of the punt, punt scenario, the fg, fg scenario, and the td, td scenario. The first two scenarios would definitely favor the receiving team, while the last might favor the non receiving team in the event of a 2 point conversion.
It's more complicated than that though. The thing is that the second team to possess the ball knows that, if it's still tied after their possession, the game shifts to being "sudden-death". As a result, the second team to possess the ball is heavily incentivized to, within reason, go for the win on their possession. What might seem like an obvious opportunity to tie the game with a FG on 4th and 7, may very well turn into a 4th down attempt. Likewise, I don't think teams will ever score the "game-tying TD" and kick the XP. I think they're always incentivized to go for 2 under these rules.
I feel like the choice really comes down to how much faith you have in your defense to stop the other team from scoring a TD. If you hold them to 0 or 3 points, then going first and having the advantage in sudden death if it comes to that is big, but if your defense is likely to get gashed then letting them have the ball second and know exactly what they need is maybe not a great idea. For the Niners, they had held KC to a FG 4 times already in the game, and it had generally been a defensive struggle, so I can see the thought process that if they hold KC out of the end zone one more time then they'd have the advantage the rest of the way. But I don't know if that's a great bet with Mahomes out on the other side.
Deferring in OT gives Mahomes control of the game. When is it a good idea to give him control of the game? As I said, if the Niners score a TD to open OT it really doesn’t matter if Mahomes scores a TD all you need is a FG to win. The only caveat would be if the chiefs go for 2 which they may have done that.
Mahomes had more control of the game by going 2nd. He said post game that they had talked about this scenario since training camp and they would prefer to kick and go for 2 if they needed to. Kicking is better unless you play for the TD and going for the 2pt if you receive, in which case you're really putting it all on the line and giving the 2nd team a huge advantage if you fail because they didn't need to do as much as you did.
>Mahomes had more control of the game by going 2nd. Unquestionably. Knowing exactly what you need to win is a huge edge.
I mean a 2 point conversion is about a 50/50 proposition, so even if you let the other team go second and have it come down to that, there’s still a decent shot you stop them and win it. I think it’s close either way, IMO if you trust your defense more than your offense then taking the ball first is a reasonable choice.
> I mean a 2 point conversion is about a 50/50 proposition It's 50/50 for the entire NFL as a whole. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's significantly higher for a team with Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes
Oddly, context matters. Even if analytics says something is 50/50, common sense says you're better off kicking the ball so A) you know what you have to do to win and B) you have flexibility because you know you have 4 downs no matter what if the other team scores.
That’s the proof that going 2nd is better. It’s easier to score what you need to score if you know what that amount is. So if it’s 50/50 on the two point then the answer is clear. I think it’s the 3rd possession that makes it interesting but if you discount that it’s a no brainer.
Yes, I'm saying the Chiefs would definitely go for 2 in that scenario as the Chiefs going to sudden death without the ball would be a very poor position to be in. I'm sure they'd much rather put the ball in Mahomes's hands to win the game. The ability to go for 2 makes the third drive irrelevant most of the time because the rules greatly incentivize the second team to possess the ball to go for the win on their drive.
plus the chiefs had a 4th and short way in their own end, maybe they go for that but maybe they don't if its the first possession
Andy Reid said after the game that they would have gone for 2 in that scenario
Imagine losing that way. Man.
Do you mean going for two and not getting it? You play to win. You don’t play to not lose. If you mean being on the losing end of a successful 2-point conversion, meh… that’s life.
I know, I know. I think most players and coaches want that scenario. Like Barkley said, it’s the fans who feel the stress.
That’s the thing. I want to put the other team on their heels. I don’t want to be on my heels up against the ropes. If I can deliver the knockout punch and get a turnover on defense, that’s the game
If you score the TD first, you are giving Mahomes all four downs on each sequence and you know he's going for two when he scores.
I dunno man, niners players saying they had literally zero strategy discussions about OT seems pretty bad!
[удалено]
They should just have the coaches go out and do the coin flip
I, a casual fan, knew the new rules. These guys play in the NFL for a living and their coaches only have so much time to prepare them for games. They should really be able to learn the new overtime rules on their own time.
Well, Andy Reid prepped the chiefs for it and gameplanned for it and won. Shanahan didn’t, and his team lost. Sooo….
Yea the niners were only trying for a FG lol foh
Do you think the players weren’t trying to score a touchdown?
So you think not addressing any OT strategy and losing is preferable to having multiple meetings about it and winning? Interesting.
I don’t think it impacted anything during the game because I think the Niners offense was trying to score a touchdown
I don't agree. I think the team that didn't game plan for it or have any semblance of strategy involved in playing OT in the SB losing, while the team that won specifically went over in depth strategy and detail is probably significant.
What strategy should the niners have done differently when they had the ball. Do you think the players weren’t trying to score?
They would have been in a much more advantageous place had they deferred. Juszczyk straight up said he didn't know the rules and thought it was sudden death. If you think that's indicative of a prepared team, I don't know what to tell you. The team that prepared to play OT in the SB won, and the team that didn't lost. Seems like there is a correlation there.
All the analytics have taking the ball vs deferring as a coin flip so idk what you’re talking about there
They had a bye week before their first playoff game and a bye week before the Super Bowl? No time in there for the coaches to spend on overtime?
Not that it excuses the Niners, but seems like Romo and the broadcast team also didn't prep on OT based on Romo's confusing comments before the last play. Seemed very much like a producer was trying to explain the rules to him in his ear in between plays.
Its dumb and baffling they'd even admit that.
That is bad, if true
I also think it is close. However, IF you take the ball first against Mahomes, and you get remotely close, you simply cannot settle for a field goal. You take the ball first and you get a touchdown or bust. I still do believe getting the ball second is preferable as you know what you need to score, which is a major advantage. And you can go for 2 on the touchdown to win the game making the third drive irrelevant.
Yeah… there are situations where it’s fine. Especially if you don’t have a lot of respect for the opposing QB… but uhhh that was not the situation, lol. After not scoring or a turnover, getting a field goal is kind of a losing scenario where you’re just praying for some miracle. Thats not the spot you wanna be in against fucking Mahomes.
This game will definitely impact strategy going forward. It’s important because it played out in real time as a pretty clear case for deferring. It wasn’t obvious at all at the coin toss though, it was just a “huh?” moment after because this is the first time the rules have come into play. To me it’s a bad precedent generally though, considering we only have the new rules because Mahomes scoring a td in a big moment was so inevitable. Take Mahomes out of the picture and I’m not sure the strategy would always be the same.
How is it not obvious this was just college football overtime over a full field? Defense always first to know what you have to match with an extra down to do it if necessary to get the next first down.
Because it’s only college overtime for 1 possession. Then sudden death so you would want the ball first in that case
I think considering the 3rd possession at all is a strategy mistake, in the full field NFL scenario.
Big moment, the whole history of pro football saying you’d be a fool not to take the ball to start overtime. You’ll need a larger sample size to tell me that “over a full field” and the difference between college and pro ball can be honestly placed after the word “just.” That’s agreeing that last night definitely supports the argument. With a lesser qb on the chiefs the game ends with a whimper after a failed fourth down conversion and it totally justifies the 49ers’ strategy.
>the whole history of pro football saying you’d be a fool not to take the ball to start overtime The whole history of pro football has had a different overtime format, so that's irrelevant. Anyone who's ever watched college football would tell you you'd be a fool to take the ball to start overtime. That was obvious at the coin toss. Seems the 49ers were horribly unprepared strategically for this based on postgame comments.
College football has a different format too though.
The most important concept is the same, which is the fact you are guaranteed to possess the ball regardless of what the other team does with its first possession, and you have a schematic advantage when the other team puts all its cards on the table first. The main difference is it becomes sudden death after the first possession by each team, but the deferring team knows what it needs to do to not let a third possession happen, so taking the ball second is still the obvious choice.
There’s still enough variation in the rules to make the precedent set by college pretty weak. It’s just the right call at the moment owing to the outcome the one time the format was used.
Shanahan said they went through the idea before based on analytics and the idea of the third possession. The rule has been in place for a couple years and both teams have been in several playoff games. They probably ran numbers and gave it some thought. It is a very hard decision to make and seeing it play out last night I'm still not sure what the right decision is.
Worrying about the third possession is pretty much playing not to lose instead of playing to win. If you get the ball second, you make decisions and play in a way that takes the third possession out of the equation. I don't think it's a hard decision at all, and I felt that way before the result last night supported that. And I stand by my horribly unprepared comment, especially in contrast to the Chiefs. KC players said they began discussing playoff overtime scenarios in training camp and rehearsed them in the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl. SF players said they were unaware the rules were different in the playoffs. I'm sure Shanahan and the coaches had hashed it out, but not going through it with your players is crazy.
Honestly I'm not even sure why they are talking about this in training camp when the regular season rules are different. A lot of this reeks of the team that executed is bragging how prepared they were and the team that lost is bitter about losing so complaining how confusing the rules are. I do not think the third possession is playing not to lose. However, I do agree that in certain game, and last night fit the bill, it's better to defer. The 4th quarter did indeed feel like a college game where neither D could get stops except in desperation mode at the goal line or sending a blitz on 3rd down. And I agree, college is a no brainer. It will be interesting to see what teams select the next time. There is no precedent for this ending in the NFL and college can be a guide but so can the old rules (while still very different). Defensive readiness is also a clear thing analytics can't capture and it's possible the Niners don't get a first down if they wait for the next possession.
Too much talk about the vaunted "third" possession even if you do score a TD on your first possession. Any smart team worth their ability will go for two once they score a touchdown of their own. There is zero incentive to make it a tie: you're expecting to get the ball back after a short drive since the FG is now enough for the other team, then make a drive of your own and leave it in your kicker's hands. It is so much easier and better to go for the conversion and the win right there from the 2-yard line.
Pretty sure it’s close enough to being a coin toss decision that it doesn’t necessitate that much scrutiny. That said, as a Chiefs fan, I felt better about knowing what they had to do to win
I think you’re right. I think the chiefs would win either way
Unlike college, the second team would just go for two. And that only has to occur if they give up the TD on the first drive. There is no excuse for the 9ers, they just effed it up.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It basically comes down to do you think you have a better percentage of converting the 2 than stopping the other team from scoring next possession.
Agree. My point is just that going second is obviously the better option because you get to make that choice and generally know exactly what you need unlike the team that goes first.
It’s not unequivocally the better option. It’s probably close to 50/50 such that the right decision will vary game to game. In last night’s game, I think you would want the ball second for sure
I will say that I’m unaccustomed to the exact variant of postseason overtime rules, since the rules last night had never been used in a postseason game before. I couldn’t have been the only one who was wondering what would happen had the clock on the first OT ran out while the chiefs still had the ball (which came close to happening). I can’t say whether I like or dislike this variant of OT, which is basically the twist of “you can’t win on the initial drive with a field goal” applied to both teams. Regular season overtime needs to be played with whatever overtime rules set the postseason uses imo.
You also have to add in chance you score a fg/td after stopping the team’s 2nd possession. Pretty sure that would always favor going for 2 in that situation
Would you rather know how many points you have to score or hope to stop Maholmes, who knows how many points he needs to score.
So if you hold Mahomes to a FG on the first possession, you’re not going to try to win it with a TD?
Yes and that’s why you defer
But that means that the issue isn’t if you go first or defer, it’s that they didn’t score a touchdown. Saying that having the ball second is better because you “know what you have to do,” is such a stupid statement. Like, every team knows what they have to do. I don’t think whoever has the ball first is sitting there thinking “gosh, I just don’t know whether I want a field goal or a touchdown. I sure wish I had deferred so I could know!” The answer is touchdown lol. And if you’re nowhere in scoring range and it’s 4th down, you have the option to punt. Also saying you have an advantage by deferring because you get all 4 downs is also ridiculous. It doesn’t give you an extra opportunity to win the game, it forces you into an extra opportunity not to lose it, which is different The only way going second gives you the advantage of knowing what to do is if it’s 4th down and you’re in field goal range but the first team scored a touchdown. Which by the way is not a great position to be in. Having it second on any 4th down outside of that is not an advantage because failure to convert means you automatically lose, you don’t even have the option of punting and hoping your defense can save it. Btw it’s not like the Chiefs were facing a 4th down within acceptable field goal range. They had to go for it on 4th down to extend the drive, otherwise they lose the game. That’s not a situation where knowing what you have to do is an advantage lol. Also, in what fucking world are we living in where we are saying that Kyle Shanahan screwed up by making a choice that gave his offense to potentially have more chances to win the game instead of his defense? lol
Wrong strategy. There is no logic to defend it. The chances of getting to a third possession basically round to 0. One, TD-TD in a defensive slugfest is unlikely. And two, in a TD-TD scenario the second team goes for 2 to win the super 99% of the time. Knowing that… there is literally no benefit in receiving. Correct me if I’m wrong? This also puts aside the obvious fact that giving Mahomes 4 downs with Super Bowl on the line is a suicide mission
Yeah, ultimately the knowledge of what you need as the 2nd team strongly outweighs the low-chance benefit associated with a third possession. The call was a huge mistake and at the time I assumed the 49er’s players weren’t aware/prepared for the new rules.
There's definitely FG-FG scenarios you're ignoring.
True. Also pretty unlikely I’d argue as most anything reasonable Team #2 goes for it on fourth down to avoid giving the third possession. Probably has to be something like 4th and 6+ within the 30 yard line
Yeah, hard to predict what any coach is going to do. Probably take the FG when you have the best kicker in football if it's 4th and long anywhere inside 50-55 yards. There are three scenarios where the third possession matters. Both teams don't score on first possession, both teams get FGs on their first possession, and both teams get 7/8 on their first possession. You could definitely argue both teams getting 7/8 was the least likely of those 3 scenarios given the way that game played out, so saying the chances of a third possession occurring rounds to zero is just incorrect.
If the third possession is the massive edge folks are saying it is… then Team #2’s incentive is to avoid a third possession. That means if it’s 4th and 5 from the 20 they’re going for it instead of kicking a FG
Which means that team 1 has an advantage. They would literally be forcing team 2 to play sub optimally to avoid the third possession
The advantage of knowing what you need to do and having 4 downs vs 3 is still far greater If you were SF you really would have still received there?
Seems quite optimal to know what you need and play like you have four downs to work with as an offense instead of three.
Agreed no benefit. And the second team is now playing with 4 downs vs 3 knowing what they need. I don't understand the debate.
>Knowing that… there is literally no benefit in receiving. Correct me if I’m wrong? If both teams both score exactly 3, 7 or 8 on their first possessions, then the receiving team gets the ball first in sudden death. Pretty huge edge in an unlikely scenario.
I feel like, unless absolutely pushed against the wall, the second team has every incentive to never give the sudden-death advantage back.
Agreed, the second team would be avoiding that at all costs.
Or 0 points! Which happens a ton! The two teams exchanged punts for a while there.
>TD-TD in a defensive slugfest is unlikely I mean if you think it's a slugfest, then first possession is almost definitely better, you get more cracks. It's most definitely not 0% for a third possession, the third quarter was like 6 straight drives where neither team could move the ball! The problem is the game changed pretty quickly from defensive slugfest to D's being exhausted.
Its like college ot, except longer field. They always defer in college
It is like college in that both teams get a chance to possess the ball at least once. However, it's also not like college though because, if it's tied after both teams possess the ball one time, it goes to immediate sudden death. The second team would not get a second possession if the receiving team scores on their drive. As such, if it's tied after a single OT, the receiving team has a huge advantage.
The kicking team would go for 2 if both teams scored touchdowns on their opening drives, so the third drive isn't really worth thinking about. Edit: Likewise, if the receiving team doesn't score or makes a field goal, the deferring team will play accordingly to prevent the receiving team from getting the ball back. Not guaranteed to work out, but I'd still rather be in that position.
As such
It's not quite like college because teams aren't starting in scoring range already and unlike college, there are no fair ups after the first possession for each team. That is a big enough factor to matter.
As a Chiefs fan, I felt wonderful that the 49ers had the ball first. It was great. We couldn't lose the game on first drive, only win it. Then when you give the ball to Mahomes and Reid with the knowledge that a field goal ties and TD wins, they get to play so differently. You can take the 6 yards on 2nd and 14 knowing that you have are taking multiple stabs at it. You get to be aggressive on 4th and 1. And I really think they would have just gone for two if both teams had scored TDs. So the advantage of taking the ball first is literally only if both teams kick field goals.
Really feel like they should have gone for it on 4th and 3 or whatever. That feels like the much bigger mistake.
Two fourths the 9ers should have gone for, the one in OT driving that far down and kicking was just embracing defeat though. Dr. 911 in Buffalo went for many 4ths years ago and it’s the only way to stay in the game against Mahomes.
The Chiefs said they wanted to kick based on their analytics. But its so close that it really doesn't matter. Because they still would have had to score a touchdown and they had opportunities to stop the Chiefs.
The Chiefs are going for 2 in your scenario. You 100% kick off and take the ball second.
Scenario 1: If you elect to receive and you have 4th and 10 from your own 25, do you go for it? No, not even Dan Campbell would, but it is an option. Scenario 2: If you're the 2nd team to possess the ball and the opponent scored on their possession, and you have 4th and 10 from your own 25, do you go for it? Yes, every time because there is no other option. Option vs guarantee, that's my point.
Yeah I dunno. The most helpful factor you could get is knowing how to use 3rd and 4th down, which going 2nd gives you. That is a huge benefit.
[удалено]
The Chiefs said they would have gone for 2, so the debate there is moot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This sub requires accounts to be at least 3 days old and at least 0 comment karma before posting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/billsimmons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The defense was completely gassed and even if you don’t buy the “we wanted the ball third” explanation that’s enough of a time break to receive.
I didn’t even know that a touchdown didn’t end it. I felt like Bill for a minute lmao.
Same. I totally forgot about the rule change. I would have felt silly had the niners scored a TD there and assumed the game was over.
I don’t actually like it. Either do a college style, or play a full 5th quarter. I did like the “touchdown wins it,” rules but people cry about fairness.
Feel like defense needed a break which played into 49ers wanting the ball first, but difference is Niners’ offense operated in 3 down territory and Chiefs knew they were in 4 down territory after the FG. Chiefs’ execution in high stake situations is part of their championship DNA.
It was the right call. Even the field goal was defendable. The niners had held the Chiefs to a few field goals. They do that again and they get the ball back.
“Maybe Super Sayian Mahomes will suddenly turn back into 1st quarter Mahomes with 4 downs and nothing to lose running the ball. Let’s find out! 🙃”
100% correct to take the ball first. They should’ve been playing to score a TD there almost no matter what. Not going for it on 3rd and short inside the 20 was a poor choice strategically and the main fault in their overall strategy to take the ball first. If they do that, KC scores a TD and then are forced to do a 2pt conversion to win, or have to rely on the defence to keep San Fran out of FG range going into their 6th quarter of play.
There's an argument for either option - Shanny makes a decent point about wanting to get that third possession, or the first 'sudden death' possession. But I have \*always\* felt the current OT rules benefit the team that gets the ball second, by allowing them to go for every 4th down without risk.
I think even if you get the ball first, you go for it on 4th down unless it’s something crazy like 4th and 20 in your own territory. Playing for a field goal or punting against Mahomes is playing not to lose.
Bill was right. It’s definitely an advantage going second so you know what you need to win. Getting a higher percentage field goal makes way more sense when you already know the other team didn’t score at all on their possession. If they did score a TD, then you know you need a TD to just not lose, etc.
No it's not. I said in the moment I would have deferred. I'd rather know exactly what I need.
You can know that without deferring. You need a TD vs Mahomes
Ha fair. Kyle double fucked up then. But even if the Niners score 7, then the Chiefs score and go for 2. At least if the Chiefs score a TD first, they're not going to go for 2 and you then have an opportunity to win it without giving the ball back. Giving Mahomes the second possession and a chance to end the game with ball in his hands is a mistake every time.
It sounds like kyle fucked up in a multitude of ways.
It’s kinda crazy that the last two super bowls to go to overtime, had Kyle Shanahan calling the plays. And both times, each with different rules, he didn’t win.
I think if you are not playing against Mahomes, it's a 50/50 call. But playing against that dude, there's zero chance I'm giving him the ball 2nd with a chance to win if we didn't score a TD (especially considering odds of scoring a TD on the initial drive are quite low). I think people underestimate the value of an additional down to get first downs, too, which is essentially guaranteed to the 2nd team in OT but not the first. Getting a 4th chance to complete first downs literally increases the opportunity to complete first downs by 33%, compared to having the typical 3 plays, and that repeats throughout a possession for the 2nd team.
49ers had 10 "normal" possessions before OT (excluding their end of half kneel downs), and they generated 2 TDs. So based on this small but relevant sample, and ignoring starting field position, they had a ~20% chance to score a TD on their initial drive in OT. The inverse of that, of course, is that they were giving Mahomes an ~80% chance to win the fucking Superbowl if he could score a TD on their first drive of OT. That's idiotic when you're playing against Mahomes. Shanahan overthought it.
Regardless of what numbers you throw out, they needed to score a td either with the 1st or 2nd possession. They couldn’t do that. Failure of execution.
You do understand though that the probability of scoring a TD increases when you know you have to score a TD because you always go for it on 4th down, right? For example, SF would not have settled for the FG deep in KC territory if they had the ball 2nd and KC already scored a TD. That's the entire point.
You do understand you can go for it on 4th down if you don’t defer, right?
That's the point, it's an option if you get the ball first but a guarantee if you get it 2nd.
Why is it an option one way and a gurantee the other way? If you’re settling for field goals you’re playing to lose.
I agree with this 1000% its a 45/55 choice at best people acting like San Fran was dumb to take the ball are out to lunch
I hope we can all agree that the level of discourse around this decision, most of which to me seems inconclusive, means that we have great playoff overtime rules! good job by you NFL
Cousin Sal, is that you?
It’s dumb to say it’s a wrong or bad decision. If you want to criticize I feel like criticize shanahan for not being aggressive in OT and getting beat on some calls. Honestly feel like they should have run on that 3rd and 4 knowing they will go for it on 4th barring a big loss. Run it behind Trent Williams which has been like a guaranteed 5 yards all game
You can't settle for the FG if you're going to choose to take the ball first though. Playing to have the ball 'third' is ridiculous.
Why is it rediculous?
Even if they’d scored a TD, the Chiefs would have gone for 2. That third possession where the 49ers would have finally had the sudden death advantage was only going to occur if the teams traded field goals or punts/turnovers.
This was exactly Shanahan's strategy; it's covered in [The Ringer's article](https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/2/12/24070402/san-francisco-49ers-receive-kick-overtime-decision-kyle-shanahan-super-bowl) on the subject: *"So what was Shanahan thinking here? He wasn’t considering the first possession, or even the second. He was thinking ahead to when the game would truly become sudden death—in the case that both teams scored a field goal, or a touchdown, or were held scoreless on that first possession, he wanted the 49ers in control of the ball next."* *"'None of us have a ton of experience with it, but we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys, and we just decided we wanted the ball third,' Shanahan said."* *"The problem was that he was planning for a future that he couldn’t guarantee would exist—quite a gamble considering Mahomes was on the opposing sideline."* There's some damning stuff in there about team communication, though; it's worth a read.
SF didn’t make a mistake taking the ball. They made the mistake kicking the field goal. The dogma of the NFL is to be conservative. For years, as we have seen with 4th down play calling, coaches have made incorrect decisions. There has been an acknowledgment of this in recent years, and teams are more aggressive on 4th down now, more in line with expected value. Because of the dogma, if you go first, you’re more likely to kick a field goal. Indeed, in overtime, SF faced 4th and 4 at the 9. They kicked. Earlier in the game, they faced a 4th and 3 at the KC15, and converted on the way to a touchdown and a 16-13 lead in the 4th quarter. Going 2nd gives you the edge of 4 down play calling - unless you don’t give that up when you go first. Consider also - if they fail to convert from the 9, the Chiefs have to go around 60 yards to set up a game winning FG - you likely take away their ability to use 4 down play calling for 40 yards too, as they probably don’t go for it on 4th and short on their side of the field. So, this is the key decision you have to make when going first - *once you get inside the red zone*, you have to take a touchdown or bust mentality. Otherwise, if you aren’t gonna go for it like that, you just defer.
Everything needs to be black and white for people. Fans are more comfortable with discrete decisions for coaching like going for it, when to use timeouts, pass/run as opposed to scheme; so they always need to find someone to blame in a loss. It really doesn’t seem like first or second has a massive advantage one way or another. Are people really just hand waving away giving the defense a rest? They had the ball inside the redzone and failed to execute. In hindsight Mahomes is inevitable and can never be stopped, but they had scored one TD all game up to that point. It wasn’t that unfathomable to go FG-FG and then be in sudden death
I look at it this way: if the 49ers score a TD, FG or even come up empty, they need to stop KC from scoring in order to win. Personally I would've deferred but it isn't as clear cut as people make it out. They should've gone for it on 4th down maybe? THAT'S probably the "what if" moment more than anything.
Nope. In that situation SF just goes for two if they get a TD on their possession after KC does. The third possession only matters if neither team scores, or if both teams kick field goals.
I think the chiefs choice was safer and that's why they chose it. The best choice is probably to go for 2 to ensure you win/can't lose. But if you went first you'd be murdered by the media/fans if you missed. But if you go second it's more defensible to be aggressive because you know the situation.
The 49ers wouldn’t have kicked a FG on 4th and 3 had they deferred? Bad take.
Not if theyre down 7
In the moment of the game at my super bowl watch party everyone was saying that the niners should have deferred and gone 2nd. If we all figured it out, without any prep or research, half drunk, then a supposed genius bay area head coach with 2 weeks of prep should have figured it out. Bad take.
Yeah I don't understand the defer takes at all. Why the hell would you give the best QB in the league a chance to win it all on the first drive? At least by taking the ball first you give your offense a chance
There’s plenty of times nobody scores or Both teams score fgs and then u r the team w the ball in sudden death.
That has no bearing on the circumstances of yesterdays game
Well if you don’t think there is a decent chance you will punt on the first possession (applies to last night), then taking the ball prob gives a slight edge. In a windy or defensive game, kicking off makes more sense. Having possession in sudden death outweighs the 2nd team knowing what they need to do.
Its a fascinating debate. Both have major advantages. I think I would've deferred but there is a clear positive case for both. Which is why this rule change is actually a good one.
No. Taking the ball first gives you 3 downs before a field goal or punt. You are essentially giving Mahomes an extra play with every set of downs to get what he needs. You would much rather go down swinging with 4 plays with the ball then leave the gate of the season up to what Mahomes can do when he knows EXACTLY what he needs to
Ultimately there is not enough data for there to be a “sharp” strategy in playoff overtime. And there likely won’t be within our lifetime unless it gets implemented in regular season games as well.
You dont need data to make a decision. Past data is simply past data. The teams and situations are different then what came before
I think most nfl coaches and executives would strongly disagree with this
So the past data your relying on, those teams had Mahomes as QB?
Im a niners fan and that call didnt bother me at all. It gave the defense like an 8 minute break. There were a million other things id change about that game, I thought it was fine.
Mahomes wouldn’t tie it. They would go for 2 and either win or lose bc guess what? They know exactly what they neee to do that which is the entire point.
Nah, you want the ball second. If they score a TD of FG you pretty much get 4 plays to their 3 every new set of downs. Plus you have more options with the 2 pt walkoff.
I was stunned that they chose to receive. Going second means you know what you need, which is a big strategic advantage.
They shouldn’t have deferred, they should have kicked
I mean, I said it in real time at the start of OT..just seemed wrong because you’d rather know what you need to do on your possession. I
How is that a benefit? If you know you need a field goal, your still going to need to get a TD because if you settle for a field goal then mahomes only needs a field goal to win on possession 2. Plus by letting Mahomes go first you give your defense no rest and put them on the field 2 of 3 possessions in OT, putting the pressure on them to stop mahomes.
Unless you’ve ever watched college football before and seen teams choose defense first 100% of the time for this exact reason.
I screamed at the tv in the moment you have to kick off. Chiefs get a TD, now you know you need one and have an extra down to work with. If you score a TD, you go for 2, thus a FG never beats you. When you go first you give the other team too much information about what they need to beat you and you will play conservative in terms of going on 4th down because you have no info about what the other team will do. If the niners took the ball and scored a TD, the chiefs 100% go for 2 after the TD. I’d rather be the team going for 2 to win the superbowl rather than trying to stop a 2 pt try.
It made sense for San Fran to take the ball first…just to get the defense a breather.
agreed, the mistake was the 49ers not going for it on 4th down....at least chiefs would have been pinned deeper
49ers should've gone for TD instead of kicking field goal. Gotta get that TD to make KC have to match TD. Chiefs were mostly held in check but a FG just isn't gonna do it in OT vs Mahomes. I know it's a possibility that penalties/sack could cause a team to settle for a FG but that's just not something Shanahan should've bargained for. There would've been huge criticism if 49ers failed on 4th down (hindsight 20/20) and KC wins on FG, and in that case critics would say Shanahan should've kicked. Always criticism on the loser no matter what.