Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by crew1954, Jan 2, 2013.
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.
coin toss winner is 13-8-1... that's all the evidence you need that taking the ball is working.
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
both teams are possessing the ball more often
turnovers and punting inside the 20 are probably winning games for the toss-winning team.
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.
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.
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.
You are so right. I think I had college ball on me mind
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
True, but the overtime rules were different then.
Separate names with a comma.