Defer in overtime?

Interesting:

NFL

Nope. I would say yes if it were not for the stupid TD rule. Take the ball and at least get the FG and put the pressure on the other team to score.

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

Not with this team. go out and score 7 an end it.

Defer always.

coin toss winner is 13-8-1... that's all the evidence you need that taking the ball is working.

fxkane said:

Defer always.

Click to expand...

And give away the chance to win the game in one possesion?

Would love to hear your logic on this.

this article is stupid because it sets out to prove that you should defer, rather than looking at the numbers objectively.

if the toss-winning team is winning more often
-and-
both teams are possessing the ball more often
-then-
turnovers and punting inside the 20 are probably winning games for the toss-winning team.

BradyBranch39 said:

coin toss winner is 13-8-1... that's all the evidence you need that taking the ball is working.

Click to expand...

I agree that taking the ball is the best choice in OT but the sample size is way too small to make that kind of assertion.

Since a touchdown wins it immediately, it never makes sense to defer.

BradyBranch39 said:

coin toss winner is 13-8-1... that's all the evidence you need that taking the ball is working.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'd probably recieve everytime. I can definitely see the benefits to the other side of it, but overall the #'s don't lie. And when considering our team's strengths it makes the decision a bit clearer.

voluntarysaftey said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if going for an onside kick counts as "opportunity to possess", but there might be a rule against that kind of thing. Even if it's legal, coaches are too conservative to do something that ballsy.

mgcolby said:

And give away the chance to win the game in one possesion?

Would love to hear your logic on this.

Click to expand...

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

voluntarysaftey said:

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

Click to expand...

i think that has disaster written all over it. Take the ball and get as many points as you can. even that's scary because no matter if you score a field goal or a touchdown the other tea is always in 4 down territory.

BradyFTW! said:

Since a touchdown wins it immediately, it never makes sense to defer.

Click to expand...

Agreed!! I don't understand why anyone would defer. Makes no senses at all. They score a TD, game is done!! Clearly the people who choose to defer do not understand the OT rule.

I agree with considering the strategy in principle (and have discussed it with friends before) but when the game can be lost with 1 mistake being made, it's tough to risk it and not take the ball.

You are always thinking best case scenario which on offense is the TD to win the game of course. Taking the ball first also theoretically maximizes the number of possessions you get. You have the leg up. The best case scenario for deferring is that you get an immediate stop from the 20 and capitalize on field position. That strategy is crushed if you allow a return out past the 30 or give up a 1st down. Then you're at a statistical disadvantage.

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.

naF staP said:

Agreed!! I don't understand why anyone would defer. Makes no senses at all. They score a TD, game is done!! Clearly the people who choose to defer do not understand the OT rule.

Click to expand...

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.

mayoclinic said:

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.

Click to expand...

Baltimore won the toss and elected to receive in that game. BB took the wind by default.

Final OT: Patriots 23, Ravens 20 - Extra Points - Boston.com

The only time I can recall a coach deferring in OT was Marty Morninwheg in Chicago during his tenure with the Lions. He took the wind and was chastised in the media after Chicago drove for a winning score.

In Snow Bowl (playoffs 1/2002), Pats won coin toss, and Belichick did not defer. Patrick Pass takes kickoff in OT for a nice run to start winning drive against Raiders.