Should Kyle Shanahan have kicked off to begin OT of Super Bowl LVIII? (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

For those on the "I kick and take the ball second" group part of the reason is the chance to go for two and not give a 3rd possession. So why not take the ball first and if you score a TD go for 2 to ensure the 3rd possession comes into play (provided you make the 2 pt conversion)?

I think that is the best scenario because it takes away the TD-TD second team end the game with a 2pt-er advantage while still giving you the 3rd possession advantage.

 

[Scoresman]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

 

[markrc99]

What would happen if the Niners got the ball; threw a pick...KC fumbled the pick and then the Niners picked the ball up and ran in for a TD?

Agree with Raider, since the Chiefs gained possession, that would qualify as an opportunity. Perhaps less clear is whether an onside kick that the receiving team doesn't even touch equate to an opportunity? The rule says: "Each team will have an opportunity to possess the ball in overtime." Reading all of it, I take opportunity to mean possession. If a live ball equates to an opportunity, then does a defender touching but failing to recover a fumble an opportunity? It's not! Relying on consistency here, failing to recover a live ball on the kickoff does not equate to an opportunity to possess the ball. Question: the team possessing the ball second could be behind by 10 or even 11 points on their 1st possession? ... Could be wrong but I think the answer to that is yes, although rendered meaningless & the game called.

 

[Instinctive]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

Arent the new rules way simpler?

You both get the ball at least once, no matter what. After that, sudden death if youre still tied.

 

[Desert_Power]

Kinda feels like taking the FG instead of trying to score the TD on 4th down was the bigger mistake.

I actually think the wrong decision was not approaching the drive as 4-downs and settling for a FG instead of either getting the TD or pinning them on like the 1, where the likeliest outcome is decent field position for a game winning FG drive after a stop.

JINX

I suspect the numbers in a vacuum argued against going for it, but I agree that in context you probably want to be more aggressive there. If your defense is gassed (and facing a HOF QB) you want to shorten the game

It was 4th and 4 from the 9, so you can still get a first down without a TD. Not a "no-brainer" at all though. Incompletion has the ball on the 9 which isn't terrible, however the Chiefs would have to think more about going on their 4ths.

Close call and maybe I'm reasoning from the results, but really felt like they should've tried to get 6.

 

[Zow]

Doesn’t sound like the Niners knew the rules. Honestly unbelievable.

https://x.com/arifhasannfl/status/1757013523966697923?s=46&t=ICx5zgfs3tFXUezBjAIfQQ

Wow. I actually supported the decision made last night (as can be seen in my comments in the thread), but not even knowing the rules is coaching malpractice. Eesh, Shanny.

 

[Anarchy99]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

The league wanted both teams to have a chance to have a possession no matter what. Essentially, they deemed it unfair that your entire season came down to giving up a TD with potentially a HOF QB on the sideline unable to even get a snap on offense in OT.

 

[zamboni]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

For the very reason a few years ago in the playoffs, when the Chiefs beat the Bills in OT after Mahomes marched down the field and scored a TD on the first possession. Josh Allen and Co. never got a chance to touch the ball and went home.

 

[Instinctive]

For those on the "I kick and take the ball second" group part of the reason is the chance to go for two and not give a 3rd possession. So why not take the ball first and if you score a TD go for 2 to ensure the 3rd possession comes into play (provided you make the 2 pt conversion)?

I think that is the best scenario because it takes away the TD-TD second team end the game with a 2pt-er advantage while still giving you the 3rd possession advantage.

Yeah similarly all the "you can't give the other team 4 downs" talk is totally wrong. You have four down too. They have four downs whether you get the ball first or not. And you don't give them the chance to go for two, you have just as much chance to get 2 if you score a TD.

 

[Instinctive]

Kinda feels like taking the FG instead of trying to score the TD on 4th down was the bigger mistake.

I actually think the wrong decision was not approaching the drive as 4-downs and settling for a FG instead of either getting the TD or pinning them on like the 1, where the likeliest outcome is decent field position for a game winning FG drive after a stop.

JINX

I suspect the numbers in a vacuum argued against going for it, but I agree that in context you probably want to be more aggressive there. If your defense is gassed (and facing a HOF QB) you want to shorten the game

It was 4th and 4 from the 9, so you can still get a first down without a TD. Not a "no-brainer" at all though. Incompletion has the ball on the 9 which isn't terrible, however the Chiefs would have to think more about going on their 4ths.

Close call and maybe I'm reasoning from the results, but really felt like they should've tried to get 6.

There we go - thanks for the correction

I still think you need to be playing with 4 downs the entire drive, and I would have been running more at the end there getting chunks.

 

[AAABatteries]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

Actually, it’s not complicated at all and seems very fair as it’s close to a coin flip if the teams are equal. Nice job NFL!

 

[Zow]

One question I have about playoff OT: Obviously, the end of the first OT was meaningless, other than switching sides. Is the second OT the same, or do they kick off to start the third period?

And if not, what's the point of even having a clock running during OT? What purpose does it serve?

FIrst OT = first quarter. Second OT = second quarter. There would have been a 2:00 warning at the end of the second OT followed by halftime if the game was still tied. Then kickoff like the start of a regular second half for 3OT.

Right. Like the ref said at the toss, it's a new game. So, timing is the same.

Because of this, my immediate analysis is that is still makes sense to receive because, while time isn't really a factor, the chance of getting a third possession (where it's then sudden death) seems to outweigh the benefit of the kicking team knowing what they needed in the second possession (where, absolutely on a TD, they should go for two). Adding in the fact that the Niners defense was gassed, I still support the Shanahan call.

 

[Zow]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

Actually, it’s not complicated at all and seems very fair as it’s close to a coin flip if the teams are equal. Nice job NFL!

Exactly. The fact we're having this discussion (and I still genuinely don't know what the right call is there) demonstrates it's a good and fair rule. Seems like the benefits mostly offset each other. I get why this isn't the OT rules in the regular season but fully support this as a continued rule change in the playoffs.

 

[Anarchy99]

I would be in favor of giving the teams a 10-minute break before starting OT. Between the pressure, the extended halftime, playing in warmer temps then they have been (indoors), I think the product on the field would be better if guys had a breather. Would also give them the chance to show even more commercials.

And the plan to make the players play the entire second half and then 2 OT periods (if it got that far) without a halftime just seems extreme. That would be 60 minutes of football and five hours plus on the field.

 

[Zow]

I actually think the wrong decision was not approaching the drive as 4-downs and settling for a FG instead of either getting the TD or pinning them on like the 1, where the likeliest outcome is decent field position for a game winning FG drive after a stop.

I was yelling at the TV to go for it. The rest of the room thought I was crazy.

I supported kicking it* but thought it was a much closer call than it seemed in the moment.

*I think in a vacuum you gotta ensure points on the first possession to really apply pressure on the other team. Obviously, Mahomes is so damn good that he overcomes this sort of pressure, but if you go for it there and don't get it Mahomes + Butker (a very good kicker where a 50 plus yarder is a real chance of winning, so less yards for the Chiefs to need to get) + momentum (assign whatever weight you want to momentum) = almost certain defeat.

 

[zamboni]

I would be in favor of giving the teams a 10-minute break before starting OT. Between the pressure, the extended halftime, playing in warmer temps then they have been (indoors), I think the product on the field would be better if guys had a breather. Would also give them the chance to show even more commercials.

Totally agree with this. In the Stanley Cup playoffs, there is a full intermission after regulation and before OT because there's always the possibility that OT can run long. I think the NFL should take the same approach, knowing that each team is going to get the ball once (absent a safety). Perhaps not a full intermission, but still maybe a break to recalibrate.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

One question I have about playoff OT: Obviously, the end of the first OT was meaningless, other than switching sides. Is the second OT the same, or do they kick off to start the third period?

And if not, what's the point of even having a clock running during OT? What purpose does it serve?

FIrst OT = first quarter. Second OT = second quarter. There would have been a 2:00 warning at the end of the second OT followed by halftime if the game was still tied. Then kickoff like the start of a regular second half for 3OT.

This is why the referee at the beginning of OT made a point to announce they are "starting a new game." From what I read last night, after two periods, the team that lost the coin toss at the start of OT gets to make the kick/receive choice for the beginning of the third period (so not identical to a new game but similar). If the game is still tied after 4 full periods, they do another coin toss and start again.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

One question I have about playoff OT: Obviously, the end of the first OT was meaningless, other than switching sides. Is the second OT the same, or do they kick off to start the third period?

And if not, what's the point of even having a clock running during OT? What purpose does it serve?

FIrst OT = first quarter. Second OT = second quarter. There would have been a 2:00 warning at the end of the second OT followed by halftime if the game was still tied. Then kickoff like the start of a regular second half for 3OT.

This is why the referee at the beginning of OT made a point to announce they are "starting a new game." From what I read last night, after two periods, the team that lost the coin toss at the start of OT gets to make the kick/receive choice for the beginning of the third period (so not identical to a new game but similar). If the game is still tied after 4 full periods, they do another coin toss and start again.

Now I'm picturing the end-game playing out like the final scene in Rocky II, when Rocky and Apollo both go down at the same time and whoever can manage to stagger to their feet by the count of 10 is the winner

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Doesn’t sound like the Niners knew the rules. Honestly unbelievable.

https://x.com/arifhasannfl/status/1757013523966697923?s=46&t=ICx5zgfs3tFXUezBjAIfQQ

Niners players: We didn't know overtime rules

Multiple 49ers players said they were not aware of the NFL's postseason overtime rules.

www.espn.com

This seems like a media-created issue to me. Every article or tweet I see quotes the same two vague statements from these two SF players who were not aware of the rules. That's a far cry from saying the SF coaching staff was not aware of the rules or didn't prepare the team properly. Its not necessarily required of every player to fully understand the OT rules, strategy etc. and maybe SF decided it wasn't worth a ton of practice time to make sure every player had this down like Chris Jones apparently did for KC. Much more important that the coaching staff knew the rules and made an informed decision, which seems to be the case even if some of us disagree.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

One question I have about playoff OT: Obviously, the end of the first OT was meaningless, other than switching sides. Is the second OT the same, or do they kick off to start the third period?

And if not, what's the point of even having a clock running during OT? What purpose does it serve?

FIrst OT = first quarter. Second OT = second quarter. There would have been a 2:00 warning at the end of the second OT followed by halftime if the game was still tied. Then kickoff like the start of a regular second half for 3OT.

This is why the referee at the beginning of OT made a point to announce they are "starting a new game." From what I read last night, after two periods, the team that lost the coin toss at the start of OT gets to make the kick/receive choice for the beginning of the third period (so not identical to a new game but similar). If the game is still tied after 4 full periods, they do another coin toss and start again.

Now I'm picturing the end-game playing out like the final scene in Rocky II, when Rocky and Apollo both go down at the same time and whoever can manage to stagger to their feet by the count of 10 is the winner

If it were a soccer tournament, if all 4 quarters expire and they're still tied, they would go to a FG kicking contest to decide the winner.

 

[Mitchie]

I would be in favor of giving the teams a 10-minute break before starting OT. Between the pressure, the extended halftime, playing in warmer temps then they have been (indoors), I think the product on the field would be better if guys had a breather. Would also give them the chance to show even more commercials.

And the plan to make the players play the entire second half and then 2 OT periods (if it got that far) without a halftime just seems extreme. That would be 60 minutes of football and five hours plus on the field.

Agree with this 100%, seems like every playoff game defenses are just exhausted by the end of the game and have a very hard time stopping anyone and yeah i get KC did hold SF to a field goal. Bring back Usher for a couple songs.

 

[Anarchy99]

I would be in favor of giving the teams a 10-minute break before starting OT. Between the pressure, the extended halftime, playing in warmer temps then they have been (indoors), I think the product on the field would be better if guys had a breather. Would also give them the chance to show even more commercials.

And the plan to make the players play the entire second half and then 2 OT periods (if it got that far) without a halftime just seems extreme. That would be 60 minutes of football and five hours plus on the field.

Agree with this 100%, seems like every playoff game defenses are just exhausted by the end of the game and have a very hard time stopping anyone and yeah i get KC did hold SF to a field goal. Bring back Usher for a couple songs.

Could have handed Taylor a microphone and said sing us an acapella medley. Would have had higher ratings than the actual game.

 

[efactor]

Doesn’t sound like the Niners knew the rules. Honestly unbelievable.

https://x.com/arifhasannfl/status/1757013523966697923?s=46&t=ICx5zgfs3tFXUezBjAIfQQ

Niners players: We didn't know overtime rules

Multiple 49ers players said they were not aware of the NFL's postseason overtime rules.

www.espn.com

This seems like a media-created issue to me. Every article or tweet I see quotes the same two vague statements from these two SF players who were not aware of the rules. That's a far cry from saying the SF coaching staff was not aware of the rules or didn't prepare the team properly. Its not necessarily required of every player to fully understand the OT rules, strategy etc. and maybe SF decided it wasn't worth a ton of practice time to make sure every player had this down like Chris Jones apparently did for KC. Much more important that the coaching staff knew the rules and made an informed decision, which seems to be the case even if some of us disagree.

Well said. Kyle explained clearly why they decided to take the ball so he was fully aware of the rules. If the defense had held KC to a field goal, then it’s a good decision.

Still not sure I agree with the decision but certainly get the thought process.

 

[ZWK]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

 

[Gally]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

Actually, it’s not complicated at all and seems very fair as it’s close to a coin flip if the teams are equal. Nice job NFL!

But, but you have a chance that each team doesn't get the ball equal number of times. They just extended the injustice one possession each.

(I am half kidding. The same argument to extend to one possession each holds true. One team potentially doesn't get the same number of possessions)

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I would be in favor of giving the teams a 10-minute break before starting OT

Agree with this.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

By that logic, the team that scores first should also consider going for two. Similar debate to "What do you do if you score late to go up 7?" It ultimately comes down to whether you have more faith in your offense to convert a two-pointer or your defense to stop one. If SF had scored a TD last night, there was a strong argument that they should have gone for two because they would know KC was going for two and Mahomes would have a good chance of converting

 

[Brunell4MVP]

It's a tough decision. I think he made the right decision, because if both defenses hold all SF has to do is score a FG to win the game. That's super important. But for that right, you are seemingly forced into a FG on 4th down. Perhaps he should have gone for it on 4th down, then KC would have had farther to go if SF doesn't get it. That is probably the bigger decision than who gets the ball first.

I've never liked the NFL rules. I think it should be the college rules, but no FGs allowed. That way both teams know they need to go for it on 4th down to get a TD, plus the K is under huge pressure to make the extra point. And from a betting perspective OT should not count towards the over/under for the game. Especially in college. Stupid 3-4 OT games that jack up the points

 

[zamboni]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

I think it's fair because you could effectively lose a playoff game/Super Bowl on a coin toss. A lot easier said than done to just "stop Mahomes" - at least in regulation you have a chance to get the ball back if you can't stop Mahomes on the opening possession.

 

[Zow]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

Awesome, this is the information I was hoping would come out because I was genuinely torn.

It also proves that the new playoff OT rules are good and should be kept.

 

[Zow]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

By that logic, the team that scores first should also consider going for two. Similar debate to "What do you do if you score late to go up 7?" It ultimately comes down to whether you have more faith in your offense to convert a two-pointer or your defense to stop one. If SF had scored a TD last night, there was a strong argument that they should have gone for two because they would know KC was going for two and Mahomes would have a good chance of converting

I posed that in the game thread last night and got blasted for it, but I think my query is a valid one.

 

[Zow]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

Strongly disagree with you here.

The new rules create a near 50/50 proposition and nearly eliminate the benefit of winning a non-football event based on luck (the coin toss). Isn't that what we want to decide the biggest game on the planet??

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I give both coaches credit for having a plan. And their players there for the coin toss knew it. There are some coaches that would have no idea there were different rules for this game. I mean they should, but let's be honest many of these coaches are morons about these things, even if they get notices from the league about it. Right or wrong they had a theory.

 

[AAABatteries]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

By that logic, the team that scores first should also consider going for two. Similar debate to "What do you do if you score late to go up 7?" It ultimately comes down to whether you have more faith in your offense to convert a two-pointer or your defense to stop one. If SF had scored a TD last night, there was a strong argument that they should have gone for two because they would know KC was going for two and Mahomes would have a good chance of converting

I'd be ok if forced both teams to go for 2 in OT like they do in college after a couple OTs. However, giving them the option presents some interesting strategy options.

 

[AAABatteries]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

This is how I felt so happy to see some numbers (not necessarily the only or accurate ones) bare it out. I do find it interesting that the poll leans the other way.

 

[ZWK]

It's a close call.

If you get the ball second, you have the advantage that you know how many points you need. If the first team scored then you don't punt, and if the first team scored a TD then you don't settle for a FG. It helps to have that extra down when you know what score you need.

If you get the ball first, then if the first 2 possessions are tied (0-0 or 3-3), the game becomes sudden death overtime where you start with possession, which is a significant advantage. (It won't be tied 7-7 if the other team makes the smart choice of going for 2 in the situation where you score 7 and then they get a TD, and that's what the Chiefs were planning to do.) And you get some rest for your defense.

These different advantages roughly balance out. When the rules were announced, Brian Burke estimated that the team that gets the ball first wins 50.19% of the time (assuming the 2nd team is planning on going for 2), which is close enough so that it could go either way depending on game-specific details. And Seth Walder's informal poll of analytics staffers is split 50-50 (among the ones who took a side).

By that logic, the team that scores first should also consider going for two. Similar debate to "What do you do if you score late to go up 7?" It ultimately comes down to whether you have more faith in your offense to convert a two-pointer or your defense to stop one. If SF had scored a TD last night, there was a strong argument that they should have gone for two because they would know KC was going for two and Mahomes would have a good chance of converting

No, that's much worse for the first team.

When it's the second team going for 2, if they make it then they win. When it's the first team going for 2, if they make it then sometimes the game just gets tied up.

Consider the simple cases where extra points are successful 100% of the time and 2 point conversions are successful 50% of the time. If both teams score a TD:

If the first team kicks and the second team goes for 2, 50% of the time the first team wins and 50% of the time the second team wins.

If the first team goes for 2, then 50% of the time the second team wins, 25% of the time the first team wins, and 25% of the time they're tied after the two possessions. That is bad for the first team.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I think it's more interesting Shanahan got away from the run much like he did in the ATL SB. I'm a huge fan of his, but disagree with how he approached the 2nd half in both games.

If you look at the play by play of last night, he threw it on 1st and 2nd downs the first two drive of the second half. Incomplete passes and a -8 pass put them behind the chains and made them 3 and outs. Romo who is a turd of an announcer was correct in continuing to say run the ball. The 3 and outs failed to make KC play a longer field. He simply can't put his QB in 3rd and 10+ situations but he did several times.

Some commentators were saying the extra point changed the tide of the game. I think it had already changed due to SF's play calling. And the botched punt return made it even worse.

I also think coaches would be better off not fielding punts at all when the catch will be inside the 15. I know this instance was it hitting a player, but why even be blocking there. To save 4-5 yards. It's not worth the risk of a fumble or block in the back penalty on a return. Send 11 at the punter and make him rush the kick hoping it keeps him from pinning you deep.

Chiefs 25-22 49ers (Feb 11, 2024) Play-by-Play - ESPN

Play-by-play action for the Kansas City Chiefs vs. San Francisco 49ers NFL game from February 11, 2024 on ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[AAABatteries]

I think it's more interesting Shanahan got away from the run much like he did in the ATL SB. I'm a huge fan of his, but disagree with how he approached the 2nd half in both games.

If you look at the play by play of last night, he threw it on 1st and 2nd downs the first two drive of the second half. Incomplete passes and a -8 pass put them behind the chains and made them 3 and outs. Romo who is a turd of an announcer was correct in continuing to say run the ball. The 3 and outs failed to make KC play a longer field. He simply can't put his QB in 3rd and 10+ situations but he did several times.

Some commentators were saying the extra point changed the tide of the game. I think it had already changed due to SF's play calling. And the fumbled punt made it even worse.

Chiefs 25-22 49ers (Feb 11, 2024) Play-by-Play - ESPN

Play-by-play action for the Kansas City Chiefs vs. San Francisco 49ers NFL game from February 11, 2024 on ESPN.

www.espn.com

As a Falcons fan, I both could and couldn't believe he did it again. The schadenfreude was palpable though.

 

[Scoresman]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

For the very reason a few years ago in the playoffs, when the Chiefs beat the Bills in OT after Mahomes marched down the field and scored a TD on the first possession. Josh Allen and Co. never got a chance to touch the ball and went home.

Who cares? Then its on the defense to make the stop. Why is it all about the QB?

I get why they changed it from just needing a FG because it placed too much importance on the coin flip. But a TD should be good enough to win and go home.,

 

[zamboni]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

For the very reason a few years ago in the playoffs, when the Chiefs beat the Bills in OT after Mahomes marched down the field and scored a TD on the first possession. Josh Allen and Co. never got a chance to touch the ball and went home.

Who cares? Then its on the defense to make the stop. Why is it all about the QB?

I get why they changed it from just needing a FG because it placed too much importance on the coin flip. But a TD should be good enough to win and go home.,

It's not about the QB, but rather the coin.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

Strongly disagree with you here.

The new rules create a near 50/50 proposition and nearly eliminate the benefit of winning a non-football event based on luck (the coin toss). Isn't that what we want to decide the biggest game on the planet??

All I see are excuses for not playing defense.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

As a Falcons fan, I both could and couldn't believe he did it again. The schadenfreude was palpable though.

The 49ers defense forced 6 turnovers & their offense couldn’t put points on the board.

Shanahan didn’t let a punt glance off of his foot.

Shanahan didn’t not see Jennings on a crossing route for an easy 7+ yards to make it 3rd & short, instead forcing a ball to a well-covered Kittle.

Shanahan didn’t commit a false start at a critical point of the game.

Shanahan got his team in a position to win the game at the end.

At some point you have to give credit to the KC defense for executing, and to Patrick Mahomes for putting in yet another game winning drive. The Chiefs earned this, 100%.

Shanahan didn’t do anything worthy of your shadenfruede, but I’m happy if that was cathartic for you.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

Strongly disagree with you here.

The new rules create a near 50/50 proposition and nearly eliminate the benefit of winning a non-football event based on luck (the coin toss). Isn't that what we want to decide the biggest game on the planet??

All I see are excuses for not playing defense.

We can agree to disagree.

I thought it was interesting that, according to the Brian Burke thread someone linked upthread, the original sudden-death rules favored the team that got the ball first by 57/43, the revised rules (currently in place for the regular season) are 53/47 and the playoff rules are almost exactly 50/50. That suggests the old rules did put too much weight on the coin flip

 

[Scoresman]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

Strongly disagree with you here.

The new rules create a near 50/50 proposition and nearly eliminate the benefit of winning a non-football event based on luck (the coin toss). Isn't that what we want to decide the biggest game on the planet??

All I see are excuses for not playing defense.

We can agree to disagree.

Yup.

I do think OT had to change when all teams had to do was win the toss, gain 30 yards and kick a FG to win. But when they changed it to require the TD on the first drive to walk off, that gave enough of a chance for them to help win the game as a defensive unit

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

53/47 and the playoff rules are almost exactly 50/50. That suggests the old rules did put too much weight on the coin flip

53/47 was close enough, IMO.

I get the rationale. I am still allowed to dislike the new rules.

 

[titusbramble]

This has seen a lot more discussion than any of the Campbell decisions from the NFCCG - seems to be the consensus that possessing second is preferable as knowing what you need/being able to use four downs throughout if needed is huge

 

[Zow]

These new OT rules seem horrible and way over complicated. What was wrong with "Score a FG, the other team gets one chance, score a TD, game over"?

That I agree with.

All because of 1 game, too. Everyone whined that it “wasn’t fair” that the Bills didn’t get a chance to have the ball.

They did have a chance to get the ball. Stop Mahomes and you get the ball. That’s the chance.

Changing the rules over that is nonsensical and I hated it when it was announced, and I hate it more and more as time goes on.

Strongly disagree with you here.

The new rules create a near 50/50 proposition and nearly eliminate the benefit of winning a non-football event based on luck (the coin toss). Isn't that what we want to decide the biggest game on the planet??

All I see are excuses for not playing defense.

We can agree to disagree.

And all I see is that it is finally an nearly dead-even proposition and that some random chance event no longer has a significant impact on the biggest game.

 

[Zow]

This has seen a lot more discussion than any of the Campbell decisions from the NFCCG - seems to be the consensus that possessing second is preferable as knowing what you need/being able to use four downs throughout if needed is huge

I don't have the statistics to back it up, but I believe this advantage is counterbalanced by the real possibility of a third possession that would be a sudden death circumstance.

 

[AAABatteries]

As a Falcons fan, I both could and couldn't believe he did it again. The schadenfreude was palpable though.

The 49ers defense forced 6 turnovers & their offense couldn’t put points on the board.

Shanahan didn’t let a punt glance off of his foot.

Shanahan didn’t not see Jennings on a crossing route for an easy 7+ yards to make it 3rd & short, instead forcing a ball to a well-covered Kittle.

Shanahan didn’t commit a false start at a critical point of the game.

Shanahan got his team in a position to win the game at the end.

At some point you have to give credit to the KC defense for executing, and to Patrick Mahomes for putting in yet another game winning drive. The Chiefs earned this, 100%.

Shanahan didn’t do anything worthy of your shadenfruede, but I’m happy if that was cathartic for you.

Don't get me wrong - I actually think he's a great coach and only very minimally blamed him for the Falcons game and it was much more egregious what he did to us. All he really had to do was run one more time and kick a FG and it's essentially over. I do think they should have run a little more last night but it wasn't bad - 31 rushes to 38 passing attempts. Take a few of those out for scrambles and it's still within 10.

I think he's a pretty brilliant play caller and I really enjoy watching his teams play.

Lastly, I'm really happy he lost.