Did Denver make a strategic mistake by electing to receive in OT? I think so

[BradyFTW!]

One possession can still end it, so no. You should elect to receive every time, without hesitation.

If, after surrendering a touchdown, you had the opportunity to match that touchdown, then the OP would be on to something. As the current rules stand, however, it's pretty simple.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

With the way the new Rules are in Overtime, they did.

Everyone elects to take the ball first, because they are hoping that they can drive 40 yards to kick a field goal, most teams can't drive 80 yards for a touchdown.

With the new rules, the smartest play would have been to kick off, and play defense, as overtime now becomes a field position game to whomever can get the TD.

The Assumption is that you can stop a team from scoring a TD, if you feel you can't you shouldn't be in OT anyways.... and you deserve to lose.

But if you can hold them to a punt, there is a greater chance your field position is going to be better than a kick off, and therefore a greater chance for scoring a game winning TD.

 

[SoCal Bong]

Something to keep in mind: TFB has never lost in OT, except when he hasn't had a chance at a possession.

As far as the stats, there were 400 rushing TD's and 745 receiving TD's in the NFL last year, in addition to 19 PR's, 9 KR's, 48 INT returns, and 31 fumble returns. So that's 1154 offensive touchdowns, 19 touchdowns scored on special teams, and 79 defensive touchdowns.

If you assume that each team in a game gets about 10 series a game, then that's about 5120 total series in a season. Make it 5000 to make the math easier. You have about a 23% chance of scoring a TD on an offensive possession.

On the other hand there were 838 FG's and 21 safeties. So, in the regular season you'd have about a 17% chance of kicking a field goal, so about a 40% chance total of a score that would win the game, and about a 2.5% chance that a mistake will end the game by the other team scoring.

In the playoffs, the other team's scoring to win remains the same, but your chance of winning on offense on the first position goes down to the 23% of scoring a TD. Note that these are on average. NE, GB, and NO, for instance, probably converted about 35-40% of their drives into TD's, while GRONK had a better conversion rate than a team like the Rams.

The Broncos scored 31 TD's this season via the pass or rush; the Steelers 34. So it's about a wash on that front.

Thanks for providing those #s but isn't the average possessions per game closer to 12? In which case the scoring percentages drop.

 

[Deus Irae]

No






.........

 

[loloooooooooooo]

You always take first possesion, deferring helping you is a myth. take these situations for example

defer: kick ball off and hope they don't score. if they score a td, game over, if they don't you get the ball and you will have to hope YOU score, so there are now more things to worry about

receive: you get the ball, and if you score a TD easy you win, if you don't, you punt and try to stop them. less to worry about

 

[BradyFTW!]

With the way the new Rules are in Overtime, they did.

Everyone elects to take the ball first, because they are hoping that they can drive 40 yards to kick a field goal, most teams can't drive 80 yards for a touchdown.

With the new rules, the smartest play would have been to kick off, and play defense, as overtime now becomes a field position game to whomever can get the TD.

The Assumption is that you can stop a team from scoring a TD, if you feel you can't you shouldn't be in OT anyways.... and you deserve to lose.

But if you can hold them to a punt, there is a greater chance your field position is going to be better than a kick off, and therefore a greater chance for scoring a game winning TD.

To paraphrase: if you can somehow see into the future and you know with 100% certainty that the kickoff will be a touchback and then you'll hold the opposing offense to a three-and-out, then you will have benefited from electing to kick.

Also, where you say:

The Assumption is that you can stop a team from scoring a TD, if you feel you can't you shouldn't be in OT anyways.... and you deserve to lose.

I would flip that around and say that "if you can't go down the field and score a touchdown on a worn down, beat up defense that has already played four quarters of football, then you're most likely going to lose anyways. By electing to receive, you're simply taking the first crack at it so that you win in the likely event that both offenses would have scored".

 

[loloooooooooooo]

With the way the new Rules are in Overtime, they did.

Everyone elects to take the ball first, because they are hoping that they can drive 40 yards to kick a field goal, most teams can't drive 80 yards for a touchdown.

With the new rules, the smartest play would have been to kick off, and play defense, as overtime now becomes a field position game to whomever can get the TD.

The Assumption is that you can stop a team from scoring a TD, if you feel you can't you shouldn't be in OT anyways.... and you deserve to lose.

But if you can hold them to a punt, there is a greater chance your field position is going to be better than a kick off, and therefore a greater chance for scoring a game winning TD.

this is a lazy argument. and that 80 yard td play proved it. sometimes teams get lucky... this is the nfl, anything can happen at any time. just because the other team can score a td on you doesn't mean you "deserve" to lose since the other team can likely do the same to you

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

ummm...no :bricks:

 

[ALP]

To paraphrase: if you can somehow see into the future and you know with 100% certainty that the kickoff will be a touchback and then you'll hold the opposing offense to a three-and-out, then you will have benefited from electing to kick.

Also, where you say:

I would flip that around and say that "if you can't go down the field and score a touchdown on a worn down, beat up defense that has already played four quarters of football, then you're most likely going to lose anyways. By electing to receive, you're simply taking the first crack at it so that you win in the likely event that both offenses would have scored".

good point, but not even that much is required, if the OP takes into account that the receiving team gets a mere 3 first downs, his argument is wasted because his argument is the field position game, and an NFL punter should be able to pin a team inside the 30 if his team is at his own 40 at least, which really means only 2 first downs are required to get from 20 yd line to 40 yd line

you cannot trust your whole game in the field position theme, b/c 1 play can completely alter field position......so if there is ANY chance that the first team to receive the ball to win the game, you elect to receive

 

[plk]

They won the game so how could it be a mistake.

You can only evaluate a decision as good or bad when it is made.

Whether a decision works out or not is an entirely different issue.

I know a number of posters to this board understand that because they have said it. I know a number of posters never will understand it.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It's a tough decision because I can see the problem with having your offense go out quick. I was worried about this when Denver elected to recieve but I think theirs is the right move. Throughout the 4th quarter it was hard to imagine them stopping Ben.

With their special teams, even if they go 3 and out I think they could have made Pitt go a long way. Because you can end it instantly with a TD, you should always recieve first IMO. Only exception is if the game is an absolute defensive struggle, but that never happens anymore in the new NFL.

This makes an interesting discussion though

 

[brdmaverick]

I didn't like the Bronco's odds of scoring a TD, and therefore, I too, wanted them to defer. The second team does have the advantage of knowing they are in four down territory. Also, if the first team didn't score at all, then the second team would be the first team to possess the ball in a "FG wins" format.

Honestly, the way the game ended was fluky more than anything.

While I do like these new OT rules, one of the unfortunate side effects is that the game can end on a 'turnover by downs' instead of an actual scoring play. For instance, the receiving team could get a field goal, and then the opposing team could turn it over on downs (thus ending the game). I know some games in regulation end this way, but it does not feel right that OT can end on a non-scoring play.

Oh well, overall I am happy with the rule.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

The Denver TD was sort of a fluke play.

Where the hell was Polamua? A TD is the fatal blow - game over. With a FG, at least youve got a shot at tieing things up.

The NE Safeties will be protecting the big play from happening I can guarantee you that.

Fluke, my ass.

All game long **** LeBeau's defense had been daring - yes, daring! - the Broncos to pass. To Fox's credit, he held that play off until the very end.

When Tebow lined up and saw all the defensive backs drawn in to play the run, his eyes must have gotten very wide at the sight. Slide a quick receiver into the flat on a play action fake and it's goodbye, gramdma!

If you hadn't noticed, Denver was making a concerted effort to avoid Polamalu's territory. Ike Taylor, on the other hand, was victimized relentlessly.

Look at the final play again, and you'll see Thomas slipping by none other than...Ike Taylor.

That play was no fluke. It was well designed, and Denver deserves kudos for holding it off for when they did.

 

[NSPF]

Noooooooo, absolutely not! Especially in Denver, where the thin air allows punts to go farther, which even eliminates the field position aspects of it.

But yeah. There is absolutely no strategic advantage to giving the opponent the first chance to win the game in this case, because a touchdown does win it immediately. If the rule for touchdowns was the same as field goals, you might have a point. But as is, receiving is a much better option.

 

[SoCal Bong]

For those that recognize that it's at least close or worthy of being questioned, here's more food for thought:

As of 12/5, in 2011 teams that won the coin toss and presumably elected to receive the kick off went 3-6. Not so automatic now is it? Of course it's a small sample size but we only have one season with kickoffs from the 35.

"When a team wins the toss but has to give up the ball, the coin-toss loser starts their drive with much better field position—the 31 on average..." So the team who started on defense and forced a punt get better starting field position and know that they only have to get into FG range to win. That means the advantage at that point is even greater than the receiving team in a regular season OT game.

NFL overtime: Is winning the coin toss a blessing or a curse? - Slate Magazine

Last line of that article:
"Might we soon see a team win the overtime toss and choose to kick off?"
Maybe it's not such a ridiculous question.

Maybe it's going to be close to nil advantage and current game conditions and team strengths and weaknesses are the larger factor but certainly is not as lopsided or obvious as many here believe.

 

[Froob]

Hell no, especially facing Big Ben and Mike Wallace.

 

[Amnorix]

Maybe, depending on your team. For a team like the Patriots, though (great office, mediocre/terrible defense), DEFINITELY not.

 

[UK_Pat37]

We discussed this towards the end of Russ Goldman's show 'Patriots Fourth And Two'; Patriots Fourth And Two Online Radio by PatriotsFourthAndTwo | Blog Talk Radio

Now if you have trust ion your defense, I think deferring is the safe choice. I think when you have a player like Tom Brady, receiving the ball seems most logical and you'd be stupid not to give him the ball.

However, especially when you have a hit and miss QB and have more faith in your D, would I defer? Yes.

If you go 3 & out and are forced to punt the football, you've swung field position in the oppositions favour and all they now need is a FG to win it...potentially having your punter punt with his feet inside the 10, you could be facing the ball being spotted at the oppositions 40ish!

If you have the remotest bit of faith in your D during the game in quyestion and have any ounce of doubt that you can get that immediate first down, I'd defer and see if you could swing the field position in your favour and, as a result, just need to kick a FG to win the game.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You can only evaluate a decision as good or bad when it is made.

Whether a decision works out or not is an entirely different issue.

I know a number of posters to this board understand that because they have said it. I know a number of posters never will understand it.

I guess our ability to "debate" nonsensical things is not limited to

yards surrendered by defense= "terrible"

Ahhhh determination of a good or bad decision can only be determined by the result. If the result is what you want, that tends to be a good decision.

There are few "good" decisions that end in failure.

A few years back, some Detroit coach elected to defer in OT and lost. He had a stack of "great" reasons for deferring.

My might have been correct if they didn't lose.

Bottom line is if you are not gaurenteed to get the ball back, you receive.

How can you know this, review the game in Denver this past Sunday.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]