Defer in overtime? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Michigan Dave · 01-02-2013, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG

I can think of a few situations where it might be beneficial to defer:

Example: Your defense is much stronger than your offense. If you defer, you have a chance of holding them to a 3 and out where you could receive a punt and set up with good field position. From there on you may only need to drive 20 or so yards to set up a field goal to win. This is preferential to having your O stuffed and have the same scenario play out except you switch the sides.

But yeah, in most scenarios receiving the kick would probably be the most logical choice.

Yes, but even in that situation you have to bank on a touchback (or a return not out past the 20) and a 3 and out. Just 1 first down likely flips field position enough for it to not be at your advantage anymore, and you've given the opposition a +1 advantage from a possession standpoint.

***mgcolby*** · 01-02-2013, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxkane

You are so right. I think I had college ball on me mind

College definitely take it 2nd, NFL there is zero upside.

patfanken · 01-02-2013, 07:42 PM

I'm not reading the whole thread because the answer is too easy. There is only ONE choice. You take the ball.

1. If you defer you might never see the ball. Yes its only a 13% chance, but that 13% exists. The only way to guarantee a chance to win the game is taking the ball

2. There is a limited time frame. Just one 15 minute period. By taking the ball first you have a better chance to get an extra possession within that time frame

3. Finally the numbers. Its a short sample of one year, but the coin toss winner wins 13-7. That's a significant differential.

The only time it should even THINK about it is if you are in a hurricane weather situation (a la the Buffalo game a few years ago where the wind was so hard the goal post blew off center) and having the SEVERE wind advantage for the full OT period might be an major advantage.

***CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG*** · 01-02-2013, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michigan Dave

Yes, but even in that situation you have to bank on a touchback (or a return not out past the 20) and a 3 and out. Just 1 first down likely flips field position enough for it to not be at your advantage anymore, and you've given the opposition a +1 advantage from a possession standpoint.

That's why I added the Defense "Much Stronger" than Offense condition. The point where your chance of stopping their O behind the 40 yard line or so is greater than your own offense getting past the 40 or so on your first possession.

In this scenario you'd only need a field goal to win whereas if you were to receive first your chance of winning outright with a touchdown is very, very low.

brdmaverick · 01-02-2013, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voluntarysaftey

What about always going for an onside kick?
You get the ball, you're in good position to win outright with a couple first downs ands a FG.
They get the ball, you still have the opportunity to prevent a TD and then match/beat with a FG/TD

I'm not sure a successful ONSIDE KICK would register as the other team having had possession of the ball, and therefore I think you can not win outright with a FG.

smg93 · 01-02-2013, 08:26 PM

You can take all the stats you want but at the end of the day, the decision should be based on your team's strengths. Much like a situational football decision with the situation here being the Pats have got the #1 offense in the league, you go to your strength and go on offense first if possible.

Palm Beach Pats Fan · 01-02-2013, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brdmaverick

I'm not sure a successful ONSIDE KICK would register as the other team having had possession of the ball...

yes, it does

Could playoff overtime strategy include an onside kick? | ProFootballTalk

TPL · 01-02-2013, 08:49 PM

There is no "Defer" in OT as there is no 2nd half.

If you win the toss you choose to either a) to kick or receive or b) goal to defend.
The loser gets the other choice.

If you win the toss, you choose to receive 99.99% of the time and try to win the game with one possession.
(.01% If there is a 100mph blizzard maybe choose the goal to defend)

If you lose the toss and are kicking off, an onside kick is an interesting option if you have faith in your D.

***BradyFTW!*** · 01-02-2013, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG

That's why I added the Defense "Much Stronger" than Offense condition. The point where your chance of stopping their O behind the 40 yard line or so is greater than your own offense getting past the 40 or so on your first possession.

In this scenario you'd only need a field goal to win whereas if you were to receive first your chance of winning outright with a touchdown is very, very low.

If you're that confident in your defense, then play for the FG and count on your D not to surrender a touchdown on the next possession. In either case, you're:

a) pretty screwed if you miss the FG
b) placing a ton of pressure on your D unnecessarily

***BradyFTW!*** · 01-02-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

BB notably took field over possession in the overtime game against Baltimore in 2010, because of a very strong wind favoring one side of the field. The most pivotal play of that overtime was a 65 yard wind-aided punt by Zoltan Mesko to bail the Pats out of bad field position. The Pats stopped the Ravens, got the ball back with better field position, and drove for the winning FG on the next possession.

True, but the overtime rules were different then.