Why I am ok with the call 'to kick' in Overtime.

[primetime]

I disagree, but not because I don't agree with the OP.

If you know you're going to kick in that situation, as the Patriots undoubtedly did, they should have just elected to try for the 2-point conversion after the final touchdown. The probability of scoring on a 2-point conversion this year has been 47.3%, and it hovers around 50% most years. Under new overtime rules, the kicking team has around a 45% probability of winning, so the chance of winning is higher if you go for a conversion in that instance. It's a tiny difference in probability but every little bit helps, and I'll take Brady with one play from the 2 yard line instead of relying on the offense to march the length of the field in overtime for the reasons the OP mentioned.

One additional advantage to this is that you're negating the possibility of injury in overtime, if winning is a nice-to-have and not a need-to-have but avoiding injuries is of existential importance, as was the case for the Patriots yesterday afternoon.

 

[bigballas]

There's one reason why it was the wrong call... don't care if we are down to a bunch of high schoolers on offense, as long as Brady is throwing the ball, you give him the ball.

All these threads trying to convince themselves that BB made the right call are just that...people trying to talk themselves into it. If it was the right call, we would not be talking about it.

BB is not god; he makes mistakes. This was one of them and so was the stupid kneeling at half time. You always put the ball in Brady's hands...it's really that simple.

I'm with you on this. We tried to get too cute...create plays that weren't there, etc.

We have Brady, we have Gronk....Bolden and White weren't playing bad. OL was a mess...we should have went to our bread and butter with Gronk on the line and lafail and Martin on the outside and taken the ball and grinded it out with Mr. Clutch.

Instead most of our OL play calls were trying to be cute till the end and we didnt have the guys for that this game unfortuntaely.

For example, why put Gronk lined up outside when they have Revis on him. Negates his biggest skillset which is lining up on the inside/end of line and using his physicality

Anyways, obviously upset that we lost but still have hope in this team. We've already won 12 f'n games in the regular season. Same as last year with a chance to one up it. Just need to get back in rhythm for playoff

 

[Bella*chick]

You're right. I'd still rather have the ball, though.

Yeah, I think there are definitely valid arguments on both sides. I just agree with the OP that acting like there's no other option and BB was out of his mind like most of the news media was acting last night is not thinking hard enough about it. In the old OT rules, sure, there is never a reason, ever, to kick away. But the new OT rules give you some food for thought on a day where maybe, say, you have more trust in your defense than your crippled offense, particularly with how well they had played in the fourth quarter.

I just appreciate that we have a coach that thinks about these things, that plays the odds, that takes the risks.

 

[PF_SU]

Under new overtime rules, the kicking team has around a 45% probability of winning

Do you have a source for that? I went through all 70 OT games in the regular season and playoffs since the overtime rules were changed for the regular season in 2012. Counting out the four games that were tied after (first) OT the record for the receiving team is 34-of-66. Which is 51.5%. Flip that for the kicking team and it becomes 48.5%. Considering the sample size of 66 that is as good as 50-50.

 

[aluminum seats]

disagree...I was hoping they kicked in OT before the coin toss and thought the same in the Den game.
All you have to do is hold to a FG..with that the offense has 4 downs every series to get 10 yards to eventually get in FG range. With the way the D was playing and especially with the lack of offense, it really was an easy decision and the right call. Didn't work out.....but by %, it was absolutely the right call IMO

Agreed. And considering there was no wind at that point, it would have been too clever by half to pick a side instead of choosing to kick. Honestly, Slater's confusion on that point has made this far more of an issue than it needed to be.

The Pats had scored one offensive TD all game. Smart to kick and have faith in the defense.

 

[primetime]

Do you have a source for that? I went through all 70 OT games in the regular season and playoffs since the overtime rules were changed for the regular season in 2012. Counting out the four games that were tied after (first) OT the record for the receiving team is 34-of-66. Which is 51.5%. Flip that for the kicking team and it becomes 48.5%. Considering the sample size of 66 that is as good as 50-50.

Harvard Sports Analytics has it at 53.5% for the receiving team based on Markov chain analysis, so you're looking at more or less comparable probability (in a vacuum). Still would trust Brady with one play at the 2 versus X plays from the 20 if they chose to receive, though, based on the actual context yesterday (lacking any offensive players) and the fact that they were trying to escape without injuries.

Kicking generally isn't a horrible choice, though, like it used to be when it was pure sudden death. The actual difference in probabilities all else equal is statistically negligible, as you've demonstrated.

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree, but not because I don't agree with the OP.

If you know you're going to kick in that situation, as the Patriots undoubtedly did, they should have just elected to try for the 2-point conversion after the final touchdown. The probability of scoring on a 2-point conversion this year has been 47.3%, and it hovers around 50% most years. Under new overtime rules, the kicking team has around a 45% probability of winning, so the chance of winning is higher if you go for a conversion in that instance. It's a tiny difference in probability but every little bit helps, and I'll take Brady with one play from the 2 yard line instead of relying on the offense to march the length of the field in overtime for the reasons the OP mentioned.

One additional advantage to this is that you're negating the possibility of injury in overtime, if winning is a nice-to-have and not a need-to-have but avoiding injuries is of existential importance, as was the case for the Patriots yesterday afternoon.

The Probability of Gost kicking the XP is 100% this year.
The probability of the team that wins the coin toss winning the OT is 50% (well, more precisely: 33-31-3 record (49%) for team that starts with the football)

Therefore, the odds tell you to kick the XP.

 

[moejr]

It makes sense when you think about it. BB just didn't have the confidence in the Offense to score on a long field. Couple that with Wilson coming in and getting torched for a 48 yard play on his first snap and you have a loss. Denver wins tonight and we win next week and the #1 seed is ours

 

[Deus Irae]

Nearly two-thirds of overtime-opening drives (43 of 67, or 64 percent) did not result in points. In other words, planning for the worst-case scenario (allowing points on the first drive) is not the same thing as planning for the likeliest scenario (not allowing points on the first drive). And the payoff of the likeliest scenario (not allowing points) tends to be huge. Teams that produce a stop on the first drive of overtime are 30-12-1, meaning that a stop results in victory 69.8 percent of the time.

Odds were on Patriots’ side following overtime decision - The Boston Globe

 

[primetime]

The Probability of Gost kicking the XP is 100% this year.
The probability of the team that wins the coin toss winning the OT is 50% (well, more precisely: 33-31-3 record (49%) for team that starts with the football)

Therefore, the odds tell you to kick the XP.

You're still dealing with a 50/50 chance in either case. By going to overtime, you're just putting off rolling the dice.

Odds were on Patriots’ side following overtime decision - The Boston Globe

This assumes they get a stop, though, which makes it sort of an odd article. It should say "odds were on Patriots' side following overtime decision assuming they forced a stop," but if taken as a whole (as noted above) the probability is really about half.

The decision to kick really isn't a particularly bad one, it's just that the 2-point conversion attempt may have made more sense in context - 2 yards rather than a full drive with a decimated offense in overtime, it was not particularly vital to win the game, and there was a serious need to avoid further injuries.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're still dealing with a 50/50 chance in either case. By going to overtime, you're just putting off rolling the dice.

If you're playing the odds, which is what you were doing, the odds are better in overtime than they are for a 2 point conversion. It's the play to make.

This assumes they get a stop, though, which makes it sort of an odd article. It should say "odds were on Patriots' side following overtime decision assuming they forced a stop," but if taken as a whole (as noted above) the probability is really about half.

The decision to kick really isn't a particularly bad one, it's just that the 2-point conversion attempt may have made more sense in context - 2 yards rather than a full drive with a decimated offense in overtime, it was not particularly vital to win the game, and there was a serious need to avoid further injuries.

The 2 point conversion attempt would have been lousy decision making. It would have increased the odds of being behind after the conversion attempt, lowered the overall odds of winning, and also put the Jets in a position of desperation and improved opportunity in the case of a successful conversion, as they'd have had no reason not to use the extra (4th) down to move into FG range, and almost 2 full minutes to do it.

Also, when you add the ties into the equation, here's what you get:

An overtime game actually results in less than a 50% chance to lose, whether you kick off or receive. Since a tie would have been enough to eliminate the possibility of losing the #1 seed to the Broncos, kicking the XP makes even more sense.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Kicking actually made sense, statistically-- don't let anyone of the mediots tell you different. In hindsight I would rather have received but thems the breaks.

Defense played as best they could. There was an uncalled pick play that set them up for the win. If McCourty or Chung were there would they have stopped the play? Who knows. Maybe McCourty pulls a Beckham/Butler type blunder again and they still gain those yards.

I've made peace with the loss. I feel like the team did what they were supposed to do in OT and just fell short. We have to credit the Jets though, because they went out there and won for their crowd.

We will get the 'Bardi. They can have a week 16 game.

 

[smg93]

Numbers don't back up Patriots' OT strategy

Yes, it's ESPN and Yes it's a dumb headline considering the statistics the author quotes in his story:

"The raw numbers since 2012 appear to support the advantage for the receiving team, although the sample size isn’t big enough yet to be certain. Receiving teams have won 33 of the 65 overtime games that did not result in a tie, a 50.7 percent rate."

Seriously, if these numbers included the game yesterday (which I am not sure of to be frank), had the Pats won, the shoe would be on the other foot, where the Kicking team would have won 50.7% of the time.

Either way, this is practically a statistical Tie. It's not that hard to fathom considering the receiving team likely would have to go 80 yards to win the game (on a touchback). If they were stopped and had to Punt, the other team would need maybe 50-60 yards max to get into field goal position, perhaps less.

 

[Gronkowski123]

toadie

 

[Deus Irae]

Numbers don't back up Patriots' OT strategy

Yes, it's ESPN and Yes it's a dumb headline considering the statistics the author quotes in his story:

"The raw numbers since 2012 appear to support the advantage for the receiving team, although the sample size isn’t big enough yet to be certain. Receiving teams have won 33 of the 65 overtime games that did not result in a tie, a 50.7 percent rate."

Seriously, if these numbers included the game yesterday (which I am not sure of to be frank), had the Pats won, the shoe would be on the other foot, where the Kicking team would have won 50.7% of the time.

Either way, this is practically a statistical Tie. It's not that hard to fathom considering the receiving team likely would have to go 80 yards to win the game (on a touchback). If they were stopped and had to Punt, the other team would need maybe 50-60 yards max to get into field goal position, perhaps less.

He's keeping out the ties. The reality is that, based upon the sample size since the rules changes, whether you kick or receive, you are more likely to win or tie than you are to lose. Also, he's ignoring context.

He must be one of our posters.

 

[luuked]

There's one reason why it was the wrong call... don't care if we are down to a bunch of high schoolers on offense, as long as Brady is throwing the ball, you give him the ball.

All these threads trying to convince themselves that BB made the right call are just that...people trying to talk themselves into it. If it was the right call, we would not be talking about it.

BB is not god; he makes mistakes. This was one of them and so was the stupid kneeling at half time. You always put the ball in Brady's hands...it's really that simple.

Not this "we have Tom Brady" ******** again. You have four quarters of evidence that even Brady could not move the ball at all in three downs. Not a single successful drive over 60 minutes of play.

Brady is not some supernatural entity but merely a human being that can only do so much if the OL can't give him consistently more than 2 seconds, the Jets crowd the quick passing game because they dont have to respect the deep balls/runs and on top of that we are missing our core reveivers.

You can work around missing receivers if the OL holds up long enough and you can also work around a crappy OL with players that get open quickly. It is damn difficult to do both.

I understand if people disagree with BBs decisions but everyone who says that he made a mistake or screwed up just exposes that person as someone who has no clue about situational football.

 

[luuked]

He's keeping out the ties. The reality is that, based upon the sample size since the rules changes, whether you kick or receive, you are more likely to win or tie than you are to lose. Also, he's ignoring context.

He must be one of our posters.

You know Deus, the fact that everyone comes with those lazy statistics while ignoring the context is one of the most frustrating things about sports media/reporting right now.

Instead of insightful discussions with people that have a lot of experience in the NFL all we get in articles and broadcasts are those inane, irrelevant statistics that tell you that player A is the first to do "this and that within so many games on a Monday evening". Same here with this lazy ESPN article where someone had just enough energy to do 1-2 queries in their internal database to get stats on overtime decisions but then fails to address what makes this game completely different from your average case.

We could have a discussion on the strategic merits of a team that cant move the ball giving the other team the first crack knowing that a 3 and out would shorten the field by about 30-40 yards. But instead we get this lazy drivel that then is chewed up by the masses who think thay citing statistics equals insight and "science".

 

[smg93]

For me the article disproves even more the notion that many have here that you should always get the ball in OT if you win the toss. It's not as if you have a 67% chance or greater if you get the ball first. So even devoid of context, OT games are not decided at the coin toss.

Now when you add the context as you mention like the fact that the Offense was having a hard time against the Jets defense the entire game (as the OP pointed out, the last Pats scoring drive needed two 4th down conversions for instance) plus the D was playing well in the 2nd half against the Jets O, plus the yardage differential between having to score a TD versus possibly just a FG, I don't get why the decision to defer was all of a sudden some sort of controversy. Even someone like Fouts who played this game professionally can't see this?

 

[Jackson 2]

I'm not sure a lot of people realize how impotent the Patriots offense was this past Sunday. It was putrid, and right now I don't see much reason why it'll be better next Sunday. Now, there are legitimate reasons why the results should be better (the Dolphins vs. the Jets), but I'm not expecting any metamorphosis into anything resembling the offense I became used to before Thanksgiving.

 

[brdmaverick]

You know Deus, the fact that everyone comes with those lazy statistics while ignoring the context is one of the most frustrating things about sports media/reporting right now.

Thanks for pointing that out. Everyone that is quoting historical figures is assuming that the right or wrong decision has no bearing on the actual flow/context of the current game being played.

After all, IF you are only looking at historical context, then everyone without a doubt would all agree that Belichick made a dumb mistake at one point this season. If he chose to receive in Denver and chose to kick in New York one of those MUST be wrong based on history right?!?!?! That's why we need insightful fans/media to view the conditions of each specific game to make a thoughtful analysis.