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

[SoCal Bong]

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.

Really? A sample size of one?

I'm sure that's what Belichick does all the time. "Let's see, we convert 4th & 10 at a historic rate of 20% in this situation but Denver made it the last time they tried so yeah, that's what we should do."

 

[voluntarysaftey]

I think you should always receive.

Getting the ball second has the advantage that you know if you need to go for it on 4th down or not.

Getting the ball first has the advantage of a potentially an extra possession (score td on first drive, score field goal second time around if neither team scores first time).

The potential extra possession seems like a better benefit.

Looking at it another way, trying to do the probability (a bit simplified by not taking into account starting field positions, the 4th down issues, etc):

Team A gets ball first in OT.
Team A has a 25% chance of a TD and a 50% chance of a FG
Team B also has a 25% chance of a TD and a 50% chance of a FG

Team A's chances of winning it outright = scoring a td = .25
Team A's chances of winning with FG = Team A gets FG, Team B does not score = .50*.25 = .125
Team B's chances of winnning with FG = Team A does not score, Team B gets FG = .25 * .50 = .125
Team B's chances of winning with TD = Team A does not score or gets FG, Team B gets TD = .75 * .25 = .1875

Team A has slightly better chance of winning since team B only gets the chance to win via a TD if team A did not get a TD.

This math could be flawed due to the simplifications, but I'm sure NFL clubs run computer simulations to get the real probabilities

 

[SoCal Bong]

You're on the right track and I think that is the kind of analysis that needs to be done but a FG is well below 50% probability (noted in an earlier post). Also I noted earlier that if team A does not score, team B has better starting field position which increase their chances to score and win. There are probably a bunch of additional factors that need to be included as well. I'm just glad that not everyone is falling into the idea that you have to take every opportunity to win or that because it worked for Denver that it has to be the right decision and it's not even a question.

Unfortunately I don't have access to these historic #s but hopefully someone like Cold Hard Football Facts or Football Outsiders can do this analysis.

 

[TPL]

Also I noted earlier that if team A does not score, team B has better starting field position which increase their chances to score and win. .

Just because you don't score with the first possession doesn't mean the other team automatically gets better field position.
You are still allowed to drive the ball down the field and not score, and good punts are still allowed in OT as well.

Sounds like your basing a good amount of your argument on being able to force a three and out and then getting good field position.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

PS

I noticed in your little side bet that you took the choice "Goal his team will defend" choice as part of electing to kick.
Smart move as no coach will ever elect to kick. They would use the choice of goal to defend.

Facts:
You need to possess the ball in order to win.
The only guarantee for an opportunity for one possession is if you elect to receive.
If you elect to kick you are giving your opponent the advantage of being able to win the game with one possession.

 

[TPL]

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.

.

Hey I see what you did here.
You took the choice of goal to defend as part of electing to kick. Sneaky.

neuronet said "no coach in his right mind would ever elect to kick".
And he is right.

If for whatever reason he wanted to kick off, he would choose a side to defend first and hope the other coach wasn't dumber than him and elect to kick.
(Just kidding around)

 

[SoCal Bong]

Sounds like your basing a good amount of your argument on being able to force a three and out and then getting good field position.

Actually no, that was based on historical averages noted in an article (link provided earlier), not an assumption of a 3 and out. This was specific to average starting position in 2011 with kick offs at the 35 and to average starting position of the following possession (other team) when there is no score. If there was a score (FG in playoff OT) then there would of course be a kick off and that average starting field position would be the same as for the first team to receive the ball (on average).

This improved field position may not be significant but it can only help. The bigger factor is that forcing a turnover on downs means that a FG is an automatic win which the first team to receive does not get.

 

[Wolfpack]

Exactly.
Possibly the Steelers should even have attempted an onside kick to gain possession?
If you recover an onside kick you only need to kick a field goal to win?
If you fail to recover an onside kick you should still get a possession if the other team fails to score a touchdown?

Everything you say here is accurate except you conveniently omit the fact that by attempting and failing at an onside kick, you're giving the other team roughly 40 yards of field position which puts them 40 yards closer to scoring a TD which would end the game. Not to mention they only need about 10 yards to be in FG position.

 

[Wolfpack]

(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?

Yes, but it should be noted that you still need to finish the play. So the team who started the play on offense, lost the ball then recovered the ball still has the chance to run that fumble in for a TD.

(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.

Yes the game would be over. Why should they get a chance to attempt an onside kick? They've already had an offesnsive possession. Even if they recovered it, that would be their 2nd possession in overtime.

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

Yes.

(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?

Yes. The new rules don't guarantee each team a full possession in the event that they mess up by fumbling the kickoff. All it does is guarantee the team to kick the ball off to start overtime will get a possession if they hold the other team to a FG.

It's really not as complicated as people are making it out to be.

 

[Wolfpack]

No coach in his right mind will elect to kick.

I could see weather conditions creating a situation where a coach would choose to kick (of course, when I say "choose to kick" what I mean is that coach chooses what side of the field he wants to defend and lets the opponent choose to receive the ball).

Everyone likes to point to Marty Morningwig as a fool for doing what he did and electing to defend a certain side of the field. I agree that what he did was stupid since they were indoors. But people forget that once Bill Parcells chose to defend a certain side of the field in overtime on a windy day in East Rutherford, letting the other team get the ball first, and that strategy worked.

 

[mb6592]

I don't know, seems like lots of questions can be asked:

What percentage of drives end in a TD?
What percentage of drives end in a field goal?
What percentage of drives end in field goal when using 3 downs to get a first down?
What percentage of drives end in field goal when using 4 downs to get a first down?
What percenatge of drives from field goal range end in a touchdown?
Do I trust my defense?
Do I trust my offense?
Is my defense tired?
Who has the momentum?
Look up, is it blizzarding?

 

[mb6592]

No coach in his right mind will elect to kick.

Would a blizzard in Foxboro or Green Bay change things?

 

[mb6592]

Getting the ball second has the advantage that you know if you need to go for it on 4th down or not.

Getting the ball first has the advantage of a potentially an extra possession (score td on first drive, score field goal second time around if neither team scores first time).

The potential extra possession seems like a better benefit.

My gut tells me this is right

 

[ScottieC]

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.

It's a bizarre question - Of course they did NOT make a mistake, they threw a pass and went for 80 yards and won. Did they know that was going to happen, No. But the absolute fact of the matter is that they won the game by ELECTING TO RECIEVE.

It's like saying, should Tom have handed the ball off instead if dropping back to pass on the Tuck Rule play - and then arguing that he should have, without knowing what the outcome of that decision would be - When you do INFACT know what the outcome of Dropping Back (Electing to receive) eventually led too.

Anyway - This is stupid and giving me an ice cream headache.

 

[SoCal Bong]

Most everyone replying here (especially 3 days and 10 pages in) understands that we are discussing the decision in a hypothetical situation before the outcome is known but your two cents is appreciated. Sorry about your headache.

 

[neuronet]

Would a blizzard in Foxboro or Green Bay change things?

No. No coach will ever elect to kick with the rules as they are.

OK, let me be more clear: if they are on their fourth-string quarterback, their starting RB, TE, RG, LG, and WR were injured during the game, then maybe.

I just bet 50 bucks on it, we'll see empirically who is right. Me.