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

[jbb9s]

(A) if the receiving team in OT scores a FG, and then the second team is now on offensive. They fumble, which is recovered by the first team, but who fumbles back to the second team in the same play. (troy brown style) Is the game over?

(B) If the first team receives but gives up a safety on their first offensive possession (say holding in the end zone), is the game over? I say they should be allowed to try a onsides drop kick. After all, a TD has not been scored and the second team hasn't had possession yet.

(C) If the kicking team records an onsides kick and then promptly kicks a field goal, is the game over?

(D) if the kicking team kicks off, and the receiving team botches the return without ever having possession (i.e. not a fumble, just a botched catch), is the game over if the kicking team recovers and promptly kicks a FG?

 

[pwes]

Yeah but even if they failed to kick it, would a FG be enough to get the win and sudden death, considering your team started on defense and recovered the kick? Would you still need a TD if you recover an on-side kick?

The way I have read the rules is if the receiving team recovers the ball then the standard playoff OT rules apply. (possession -Team1, if FG possession -Team2, Sudden death if tied)

However if there were an onside kick and the kicking team recovered then it goes straight to sudden death (also if the ball is fumbled by the receiving team). This is because the receiving team had their chance at a possession.

In this situation the only thing given up is field position. If you have a ton of faith in the defense it is not a horrible move to make.

 

[pwes]

(A) if the receiving team in OT scores a FG, and then the second team is now on offensive. They fumble, which is recovered by the first team, but who fumbles back to the second team in the same play. (troy brown style) Is the game over?

(B) If the first team receives but gives up a safety on their first offensive possession (say holding in the end zone), is the game over? I say they should be allowed to try a onsides drop kick. After all, a TD has not been scored and the second team hasn't had possession yet.

(C) If the kicking team records an onsides kick and then promptly kicks a field goal, is the game over?

(D) if the kicking team kicks off, and the receiving team botches the return without ever having possession (i.e. not a fumble, just a botched catch), is the game over if the kicking team recovers and promptly kicks a FG?

I have no idea about A

B- If a safety is given up then the game is over. Both teams have had a chance at a possession.

C- Yes

D- Yes

 

[PatsFan24]

I believe that Denver won the OT coin toss and elected to receive and I think this was a mistake if you ignore hindsight. Due to the overtime playoff rules, if you believe that your defense is more than likely to give up a touchdown in one possession, then you should receive but in most cases you should choose to kick.

Think about college football OT; when you win the toss you always choose to start on defense so that the offense knows what they need. If the other team fails to score, a field goal wins so you can go conservative and kick once you are in confident range rather than running more plays and risking a turnover. If the other team scores a TD then you know that you are in 4-down mode from the start. This of course does not apply to the NFL but the end objective is still the same.

I know that a TD in NFL playoff OT ends the game on the first possession but if you hold them to zero or a field goal, then you do know what your offense has to do. The difficulty in strategy comes in when you face say a 4th and short at say around the 35. Try the long FG to stay alive or get the first down to try and win while risking that you’ll lose if you don’t convert but that’s a whole nother discussion.

Well less than half of NFL possessions result in a touchdown (anyone know the %?) so it seems to me that the proper strategy is to choose to kick off rather than receive when you win the OT coin toss.

Of course Denver scored a TD on their first possession and won but I'm talking about general strategy that maybe some coaches have not given a lot of thought to but I'm sure BB has.

If this has already been discussed, please delete this thread.

No, you can win the game without even putting your defense on the field. If you kick the ball you have to make a stop. Even if you do and hold them to a FG you have to score at least a FG when you get the ball. It makes it easier to win if you get the ball first. Plus if you do score a TD on your first drive it shortens the game for your already banged up players. I can see if you have a great D and a struggling offense that maybe you want to play D first so you can get a stop and set up your offense for maybe a short field win. In most cases though I think teams would want the ball first.

 

[PatsGirl2011]

Why would Denver pass up an opportunity to win the game? If they deferred and Pitts scored, all the pressure is on DENVER! Makes no sense...

 

[UK_Pat37]

Why would Denver pass up an opportunity to win the game? If they deferred and Pitts scored, all the pressure is on DENVER! Makes no sense...

I think it's naive to suggest that it makes 'no sense' what-so-ever.

I don't think there is more pressure either way (depending on the situation)....if you kick and just get a FG, there's an immense amount of pressure on the defense to not let in a TD and lose the game. If you defer and hold them to a FG, you know you can get into FG range and keep yourselves in it. It can work either way.

With Brady and the unpredictable nature of our defense, I say you keep it every time. But what if you're someone like the Ravens? In a close battle with the Texans this weekend; two of the best defenses in the NFL. Neither offense is really putting anything up or moving the ball well, and you have a risk of punting with your heels inside the 10 yard line, thus giving the ball away close to midfield...when you do that then you ahve about 20-30 yards margin for error before you could lose the game to a kick of a FG.

Different situations could call for different decisions and IMO you WILL see a team defer at some stage. Teams do it in college all the time and defer first...okay it's different considering that you start at the 25 yard line...but the logic is if you can hold them, all you need is a FG and if your kicker is good, all you really need to do is set him up in the middle.

There's logic to both ways. For us, the logic is receive the ball no matter what with Brady. But I can guarantee you if a team has little faith they can get that immediate first down and move the chains and get some breathing room, someone will elect to defer and try and get more favourable field position for themselves if they feel they can force a punt.

For me, there is not much difference between the pressure to get out of the shadow of your own endzone and avoid a 3 & out, or the pressure of having to stop the other team going around 80 yards and getting a TD! Some might argue you'd feel more comfortable making a stop first!

 

[neuronet]

People on the internet will write a lot about hypothetical situations about when you might want to not receive. In practice, 100% of coaches will always receive with the new OT rules. Once we have enough examples bearing this out the discussion will be about why, not whether, the internet commentariat was wrong.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You have to take the ball. You'll probably see defenses play prevent-type of packages to prevent a Denver type of ending in the future.

 

[TPL]

A point of clarification with people saying to "defer".

There is nothing to defer to in OverTime (there is no "second" half).

Here are your choices if you win the toss:

The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other:
(a) Receive or kick
(b) Goal his team will defend


If you choose to kick, not only are you giving the ball up but are also giving up your choice of which goal to defend, which could be very important if wind is a consideration on that day.

Also not being mentioned is if you receive you also have the opportunity to score on a kick return to end the game.

No brainer if you win the toss, elect to receive.
*** Or if there are extreme weather conditions choose your goal to defend.

If you loose the toss and are kicking off, strongly consider an onside kick.

 

[SoCal Bong]

People on the internet will write a lot about hypothetical situations about when you might want to not receive. In practice, 100% of coaches will always receive with the new OT rules. Once we have enough examples bearing this out the discussion will be about why, not whether, the internet commentariat was wrong.

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

If under the current OT and kick off rules a single coach ever elects to kick off within in the next 50 (fifty) opportunities once or more then I win. If all 50 of the next opportunities result in the coin toss winning team choosing to receive then you win. If these OT rules are expanded to the regular season then those OT games will count as well. The first time a team elects to kick, I win; in other words we don’t have to wait for the 50 opportunities to pass. You don’t win until all 50 have passed and no team ever chooses to kick off.

If the OT or kick off rules change before a single team chooses to kick off or before 50 OT games occur then the bet is off.

The stakes will be a $50 donation to Patsfans.com and $50 donation to the New England Patriots Charitable Foundation ($100 total). Can Ian help enforce that the loser pays? Or does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can remove that risk?

If neuronet does not accept this wager, I will also offer it any other poster who has been registered on patsfans.com for at least 5 years and has at least 1,000 posts.

You said “100% of coaches will always receive” so in your opinion there is absolutely no risk in accepting this wager and I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to help two worthy organizations with my donation.

I’m not trying to be ****y here and assert that most teams should be choosing to kick off, just that in my opinion there are situations where doing so would be advantageous. Maybe I’m wrong and time will tell but I am willing to back up my opinion with a nominal financial wager.

 

[SoCal Bong]

TPL brings up some good points about what the teams actually elect when they win the coin toss. If neuronet is interested in accepting my wager offer then we’ll need to clarify these points to avoid any controversy but we’ll wait to see if he (or anyone else) is even interested before we get into the details of that.

 

[neuronet]

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

If under the current OT and kick off rules a single coach ever elects to kick off within in the next 50 (fifty) opportunities once or more then I win. If all 50 of the next opportunities result in the coin toss winning team choosing to receive then you win. If these OT rules are expanded to the regular season then those OT games will count as well. The first time a team elects to kick, I win; in other words we don’t have to wait for the 50 opportunities to pass. You don’t win until all 50 have passed and no team ever chooses to kick off.

If the OT or kick off rules change before a single team chooses to kick off or before 50 OT games occur then the bet is off.

The stakes will be a $50 donation to Patsfans.com and $50 donation to the New England Patriots Charitable Foundation ($100 total). Can Ian help enforce that the loser pays? Or does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can remove that risk?

If neuronet does not accept this wager, I will also offer it any other poster who has been registered on patsfans.com for at least 5 years and has at least 1,000 posts.

You said “100% of coaches will always receive” so in your opinion there is absolutely no risk in accepting this wager and I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want to help two worthy organizations with my donation.

I’m not trying to be ****y here and assert that most teams should be choosing to kick off, just that in my opinion there are situations where doing so would be advantageous. Maybe I’m wrong and time will tell but I am willing to back up my opinion with a nominal financial wager.

I like the cut of your jib.

It's on.

How about we make it the next ten games? That will still likely take 20 years to show I am right. After all, it is just in playoff games that this can even happen!

100 bucks is a bit too much money for me (while I think the most likely scenario is 100% receive, that doesn't mean I assign that outcome a probability of 1.0 :singing. How about 25 bucks to each Patsfans/Charity for a 50 dollar total?

I am good for my word, I think as fellow Patriots fans we should trust each other, but I'd post an image to the receipt of me paying.

No coach in his right mind will elect to kick.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

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

If you want a coach to coach on gut feelings, you guys are right. But just as BB famously self induced a safety, punted, and stopped the Denvers D in Denver many years ago, he knew he needed a TD, and that by playing defense, he gave his team better field position to score a TD.

Luck can always jump in and prove me wrong, but statistically speaking, field position dramatically effects the chances of scoring a TD in the NFL, and the goal of overtime is now to score a TD, not a field goal.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

I believe in the long run, that OT will play out far more strategic than it has in the past few years. Over the past 5-10 years ( the reason for the change sin OT rules ), it's been too easy for the team who gets the ball to get a field goal.

Now that 3 doesn't win it, field position is very important in order to setup a TD.

Granted, I am talking about general NFL teams, not Tom Brady.

There was a time the patriots manufactured TDs... by that I mean BB would out coach the situation and create opportunities to score, with field position, and battle for that 7. Now, 7 is too easy, but I remember in 2001, that Patriots team would play chess in order to score TDs... looking 4 drives ahead of the opposition in order to put them in a situation to score.

It really depends on your team, for an offensive team, you take the ball, for a defensive team you kick it ( with the old rules, even defensive teams would take the ball ). If your strength is defense, you play for field position in order to get a TD.

 

[TPL]

Now that 3 doesn't win it, field position is very important in order to setup a TD.

If your strength is defense, you play for field position in order to get a TD.

3 points is enough to win the game.
Only if a team scores a TD with the first possession the game is over.

If your strength is defence and you stop them on their first possession, you only need to kick a field goal to win (3 points) not a TD.

 

[SoCal Bong]

I like the cut of your jib.

It's on.

How about we make it the next ten games? That will still likely take 20 years to show I am right. After all, it is just in playoff games that this can even happen!

100 bucks is a bit too much money for me (while I think the most likely scenario is 100% receive, that doesn't mean I assign that outcome a probability of 1.0 :singing. How about 25 bucks to each Patsfans/Charity for a 50 dollar total?

I am good for my word, I think as fellow Patriots fans we should trust each other, but I'd post an image to the receipt of me paying.

No coach in his right mind will elect to kick.

Firstly, thank you for taking my proposal with a good attitude; I wasn't sure how it was going to be taken.

$50 ($25 + $25) is fine.

The next ten OT games played under the current playoff rules is fine too. If they don't extend these rules to the regular season then it will take awhile regardless.

To clarify the criteria, if any of those 10 coin toss winning teams do not explicitly elect to receive (they choose to kick or side of the field) then I win. Choosing a side of the field is indirectly saying that receiving the ball is not of the highest importance.

I'm also fine with our reputations as loyal Pats fans is enough to ensure that the loser pays.

I'm not highly confident that someone will make this decision within 10 games (most coaches behave lemming-like especially where new scenarios are involved) but it will be fun to see how it plays out win or lose.

 

[neuronet]

Firstly, thank you for taking my proposal with a good attitude; I wasn't sure how it was going to be taken.

$50 ($25 + $25) is fine.

The next ten OT games played under the current playoff rules is fine too. If they don't extend these rules to the regular season then it will take awhile regardless.

To clarify the criteria, if any of those 10 coin toss winning teams do not explicitly elect to receive (they choose to kick or side of the field) then I win. Choosing a side of the field is indirectly saying that receiving the ball is not of the highest importance.

I'm also fine with our reputations as loyal Pats fans is enough to ensure that the loser pays.

I'm not highly confident that someone will make this decision within 10 games (most coaches behave lemming-like especially where new scenarios are involved) but it will be fun to see how it plays out win or lose.

I'm agreed on all the stipulations here, it's a go. If you want to extend it that's fine. I'm willing to extend it to any number of games. Maybe if they apply these rules to regular season, you will want to extend it as it might only take a couple of seasons to hit (for instance) 20 ot games.

But when we are at 9, no extending it. Deadline is halfway: after 5 games, if you want to extend to 20 or whatever, that's fine.

 

[SoCal Bong]

I'm agreed on all the stipulations here, it's a go. If you want to extend it that's fine. I'm willing to extend it to any number of games. Maybe if they apply these rules to regular season, you will want to extend it as it might only take a couple of seasons to hit (for instance) 20 ot games.

But when we are at 9, no extending it. Deadline is halfway: after 5 games, if you want to extend to 20 or whatever, that's fine.

I appreciate that offer but we'll just keep it at 10 OT games regardless of whether it's post or regular season.

Thanks

 

[mcgraw_wv]

If your strength is defence and you stop them on their first possession, you only need to kick a field goal to win (3 points) not a TD.

Even more reasons to kick it, if you stop them, you have less of a drive to kick a field goal for the Win.

 

[TPL]

Even more reasons to kick it, if you stop them, you have less of a drive to kick a field goal for the Win.

And if you don't stop them...
If your strength is defense what just happened last week?
Pittsburgh's #1 ranked defense vs Denver's 31st rated passing offense.

One pass play game over.

Receive the ball and try and win the game.