OT: Onside kick in overtime?

[convertedpatsfan]

Saw this question on a Falcons board at one point, but half the responses were just too stupid to really decipher so figured it was worth an actual discussion.

After losing the coin flip, the idea was for the Falcons to go for an onside kick. I think at that point, everyone in the room knew what was going to happen when New England won the coin flip. So why not go for an onside kick?

If New England recovers, they start in excellent field position, probably 30 to 40 yards ahead of where they would have. But they still need a TD to win, and if they kick a FG, you get the ball back with a chance to tie/win.

If Atlanta recovers though, that's where it gets interesting. Technically, New England had a chance to possess the ball and failed. Therefore, a recovery would mean the Falcons get the ball with a FG to win outright.

NFL overtime rules for those who need a refresher or don't want to take my word for it.

If your D is playing reasonably well, you probably kick it off deep. But if you know they're toast, why not at least consider it?

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I was expecting it. The falcons defense was toast.

 

[Pats1989]

Yeah this crossed my mind. An onside kick would've been similar to the 4th & 3 call by Belichick. You know your defense just isn't making a stop. Thus, going for it/ onside is a no lose situation.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Im fine with their decision.

 

[pdangle]

Interesting theory. Not just for this game, but OT in general. In hopes of some lively discussion I found this.

Likelihood scoring by field position.



The graph goes right to left. So if you start at your own 19, use the '81' yds to go on the x axis.

Chance of recovering a onside kick, 1 in 10 roughly. But that's if they expect it. So maybe 1 in 6/7 in a surprise move? Anyway...

Edit: Found this chart too. As expected onside kick recovery rates go way up, when opponent does not expect it. Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Onside Kicks

Basically this report/graph says if they know you're gonna kick one (losing in final seconds = low win probability), the far left of the graph, you're recovery rate is 15-20%. But success goes up substantially the less likely you need one. Even past 60% (but i'm sure small sample sizes in effect here) when it's a complete surprise you'd even try it. With that, and if you smooth & regress that curve out, it might be fair to say ATL could have had a 30% to 40% chance of initial recovery if they didn't tip their hand.



Perhaps someone can run through the permutations.

 

[Pats1989]

If their onside kick worked, they would've only needed a FG to win. Patriots would've only needed a FG to win had it not worked.

What's really surprising is Quinn not calling a timeout in OT. Possibly have that followed up by a player faking an injury. That D needed rest. Not sure if it would've mattered.

 

[oldrover]

Likelihood scoring by field position.



The graph goes right to left. So if you start at your own 19, use the '81' yds to go on the x axis.

Perhaps someone can run through the permutations.

I was told there would be no math.

 

[jah]

I saw this thread as well, right next to the "Patriots are classless for rubbing it in Goodell's face" thread.

 

[everlong]

I actually thought during the game with how gassed their defense was and the element of surprise that would have been the perfect time to go for the on-side kick.

What's really surprising is Quinn not calling a timeout in OT. Possibly have that followed up by a player faking an injury. That D needed rest. Not sure if it would've mattered.

I was shocked he didn't use both of his timeouts right then and there to slow the paces. Of all the things Atlanta has been criticized for this is perhaps the thing they should and I've heard less of it by far than the other items.

 

[Tony2046]

Interesting theory. Not just for this game, but OT in general. In hopes of some lively discussion I found this.

Likelihood scoring by field position.



The graph goes right to left. So if you start at your own 19, use the '81' yds to go on the x axis.

Chance of recovering a onside kick, 1 in 10 roughly. But that's if they expect it. So maybe 1 in 6/7 in a surprise move? Anyway...

Edit: Found this chart too. As expected onside kick recovery rates go way up, when opponent does not expect it. Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Onside Kicks

Basically this report/graph says if they know you're gonna kick one (losing in final seconds = low win probability), the far left of the graph, you're recovery rate is 15-20%. But success goes up substantially the less likely you need one. Even past 60% (but i'm sure small sample sizes in effect here) when it's a complete surprise you'd even try it. With that, and if you smooth & regress that curve out, it might be fair to say ATL could have had a 30% to 40% chance of initial recovery if they didn't tip their hand.



Perhaps someone can run through the permutations.

Interesting. I would have thought the likelihood of scoring a field goal would initially be higher than a TD.

 

[XLIX]

If their onside kick worked, they would've only needed a FG to win. Patriots would've only needed a FG to win had it not worked.

No the OP is right: If an onside kick is attempted and failed, Patriots still need a TD to win it outright on the first drive.

A failed onside kick is treated no differently than a short kickoff or a kickoff with a long return. Atlanta never had the ball, so the Pats need the TD to end it.

 

[pdangle]

ATL chance of recovery 0.30, chance scoring from 50 (TD+FG) 0.50 = 0.30 x 0.50 = 0.15 (15%) winning outright with recovery & score.

Otherwise everything stays the same except for field position of NE and what chances of scoring a TD to end a game, and the differences between both scenarios.

From the 25yd line, NE chance scoring TD is 15%

From the 50yd , NE chance scoring TD is 30%.

So it's basically a wash. ATL gains a 15% chance of winning outright, but lose 15% chance of stopping NE from scoring a TD when they probably fail to recover and NE starts from the 50 instead.

That being said, a statistical wash is much better odds than I would have thought. Now one can argue that since the ATL D was gassed and NE O rolling, it could tilt the odds in favor of going for the onside kick being the better play in this situation. Of course, with 20-20 hindsight for ATL and her fans, today it looks like a much better option.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

If their onside kick worked, they would've only needed a FG to win. Patriots would've only needed a FG to win had it not worked.

What's really surprising is Quinn not calling a timeout in OT. Possibly have that followed up by a player faking an injury. That D needed rest. Not sure if it would've mattered.

If the onside kick fails, the Patriots would still need a TD to end it. A FG doesn't automatically end the game after an onside kick because the receiving team technically got the ball. It would be no different than a botched kickoff, or a kickoff returned to the 40.

And it is surprising Quinn didn't use his timeouts in OT. Guess he can use them in the off-season.

 

[lurker1965]

Saw this question on a Falcons board at one point, but half the responses were just too stupid to really decipher so figured it was worth an actual discussion.

After losing the coin flip, the idea was for the Falcons to go for an onside kick. I think at that point, everyone in the room knew what was going to happen when New England won the coin flip. So why not go for an onside kick?

If New England recovers, they start in excellent field position, probably 30 to 40 yards ahead of where they would have. But they still need a TD to win, and if they kick a FG, you get the ball back with a chance to tie/win.

If Atlanta recovers though, that's where it gets interesting. Technically, New England had a chance to possess the ball and failed. Therefore, a recovery would mean the Falcons get the ball with a FG to win outright.

NFL overtime rules for those who need a refresher or don't want to take my word for it.

If your D is playing reasonably well, you probably kick it off deep. But if you know they're toast, why not at least consider it?

SHHH! Let BB use that himself.

 

[ausbacker]

Saw this question on a Falcons board at one point, but half the responses were just too stupid to really decipher so figured it was worth an actual discussion.

After losing the coin flip, the idea was for the Falcons to go for an onside kick. I think at that point, everyone in the room knew what was going to happen when New England won the coin flip. So why not go for an onside kick?

If New England recovers, they start in excellent field position, probably 30 to 40 yards ahead of where they would have. But they still need a TD to win, and if they kick a FG, you get the ball back with a chance to tie/win.

If Atlanta recovers though, that's where it gets interesting. Technically, New England had a chance to possess the ball and failed. Therefore, a recovery would mean the Falcons get the ball with a FG to win outright.

NFL overtime rules for those who need a refresher or don't want to take my word for it.

If your D is playing reasonably well, you probably kick it off deep. But if you know they're toast, why not at least consider it?

I've been arguing with people down here in Aus that there is nothing wrong with the OT format mainly because 1) much can happen during the KOR, and 2) there's nothing precluding the team kicking the football away from executing an onside kick. Nice to see it's being discussed elsewhere.

 

[XLIX]

I've been arguing with people down here in Aus that there is nothing wrong with the OT format mainly because 1) much can happen during the KOR, and 2) there's nothing precluding the team kicking the football away from executing an onside kick. Nice to see it's being discussed elsewhere.

I've heard a couple media people in the U.S. argue the OT format needs to be changed, but they seem to be the minority. It's easy to complain about how " acoin flip determined the winner" back when all you needed was a FG, but since you need a TD to win on the first possession, the Falcons just aren't getting terribly much sympathy from the majority.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I've heard a couple media people in the U.S. argue the OT format needs to be changed, but they seem to be the minority. It's easy to complain about how " acoin flip determined the winner" back when all you needed was a FG, but since you need a TD to win on the first possession, the Falcons just aren't getting terribly much sympathy from the majority.

There are people who still believe the earth is flat. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but it doesn't mean their opinion has any real validity. I mean holy ****, 1% of American mothers polled claimed their child was a virgin birth.

Meanwhile, you have media people who still think we taped a practice when it's been debunked for years, don't understand high school science, and I'm supposed to take some talking head seriously because they think the OT format should be changed?

Thank goodness at least it was just Atlanta. If Jim Harbawl and the Ravens had lost that coin flip, we'd have to hear his ****ing crying for the next 25 years...