Defer in overtime?

CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fxkane said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Michigan Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 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.

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.

brdmaverick said:

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

Click to expand...

yes, it does

Could playoff overtime strategy include an onside kick? | ProFootballTalk

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.

CYA_PATS_DEN>NE_2012AFCCG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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...

True, but the overtime rules were different then.

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 may be incorrect, but I think if you are not successful with the onside kick it may count as a possession, therefore you wouldn't be able to match them.

Maybe someone else knows 100% for sure?

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

yes, it does

Could playoff overtime strategy include an onside kick? | ProFootballTalk

Click to expand...

Oops, should have backread first, I see you covered that already...sorry.

Give me the modern equivalent of the '85 Bears D and I'd defer every time

BradyFTW! said:

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

Click to expand...

This is the correct answer, unless perhaps your team is like the 2000 Ravens, which had an offense that could barely muster a 40 yard drive, but which had an absolutely monstrous defense. Then, you kick away, stop the other team on a 3-and-out, and get the ball back at around your own 40. You just need to drive 30 or so yards to have a shot at the win.

But otherwise, take the ball, go down, score a TD, and don't even give the other team a chance.

Re: Receive or pick a side of the field in overtime?

Some of you may remember that I posed the question after last year's Broncos-Steelers playoff game as to whether the Broncos strategically made the wrong choice. A strong majority were of the opinion that I was dead wrong and it wasn't even close. To make it interesting, I even made a wager with neuronet that within the next 50 OT games, a coach would not elect to receive (forget "defer"; that's not an option in OT). We then reduced it to 10 games since 50 would take too long to settle and I ended up losing and made $25 donations each to patsfans.com and the NEP Charitable Foundation which I am happy to support anyway.

I am very happy to read this analysis and see that my ideas are actually supported and that in some situations, the right decision is to pick a side of the field or kick.

Most people who don't understand this are oversimplifying the idea that a TD on the first possession can win you the game so that's all there is to it. If you apply that philosophy to the rest of the game, then you would also advocate never punting. "Why would you punt when your next play could be a TD?" A little extreme but the point is that you have to consider the percentage probability of each outcome, not just the best case scenario.

If it's so easy to score a TD on the first possession, then why did it only happen 3 times out of 22 OT games (13%) this past season? The kicking team ended up winning on the 2nd possession 6 times (double!) so do you still believe that receiving the kick off is such an easy path to victory? Of course this is a small sample size and no coach has yet embraced this strategy enough to elect to pick a side of the field or kick but it is coming and I hope that BB is among the first to do it.

Kacsmar writes:

Purely out of interest on the “momentum” concept, the team who scored last in the fourth quarter to force overtime went 15-6-1 (.705) this year. This would be worth looking into historically some day.

Click to expand...

Seems you'd really want to be the team that scores last in regulation AND wins the coin toss.

Either way, if I am coaching...gimme the ball.

I think with a proven D, i would take the ball. With this team, do you trust them enough to give the ball to a Flacco or Manning on our defense??

Our D IS improving but I don't think we are there yet.

I would take that ball and my chances and place them on the bread and butter of this team.

IMHO

You should automatically take the ball and try to get a TD. No other arguments. You either have the ball trying to score or you do not.

voluntarysaftey said:

What about always going for an onside kick?

Click to expand...

A neat onside kick would be to rocket it off some guy's helmet right back to yourself and then to run it all the way for six. What would you call it though? A kick six? A trick six? A sixy tricksy? Rexy would like that (after he gets back from sun tanning himself in the Bermuda Triangle.)