What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

Should Kyle Shanahan have kicked off to begin OT of Super Bowl LVIII?

  • Total voters
    126
  • Poll closed .
As I said in the game thread, it’s very close call and makes me really like the new rule as it’s not obvious that one team has a big advantage. I’d receive the ball because:

  1. I get to let my defense rest and possibly put pressure on the other teams offense if I score a TD.
  2. I imagine the percentage of times the teams match scores (TD-TD, FG-FG or punt-punt) is probably 25-50% of the time. If we get to a 3rd possession then it’s mine (save an onside kick).
Others made the point about knowing what you need to do and you can go for it on fourth down and decide to go for two if you get the ball second. All those are valid and what makes it so close. I just imagine there’s a very small favorability to receiving.
 
In my mind, it was a no brainer to kick the ball off given the new rules that each team gets a chance on offense. There is a huge advantage for the 2nd team knowing that they might automatically be in 4th down territory. They're also much more likely to play aggressively for the win (assuming the first team kicks a FG). Huge advantage to have the extra information.
 
AAABatteries said:
As I said in the game thread, it’s very close call and makes me really like the new rule as it’s not obvious that one team has a big advantage. I’d receive the ball because:

  1. I get to let my defense rest and possibly put pressure on the other teams offense if I score a TD.
  2. I imagine the percentage of times the teams match scores (TD-TD, FG-FG or punt-punt) is probably 25-50% of the time. If we get to a 3rd possession then it’s mine (save an onside kick).
Others made the point about knowing what you need to do and you can go for it on fourth down and decide to go for two if you get the ball second. All those are valid and what makes it so close. I just imagine there’s a very small favorability to receiving.
Click to expand...
All good points was leaning your way last night but more I think about it, i think kicking has the edge due to the information advantage. And keep in mind if the match scores is TD-TD, the team will go for 2 nearly every time, so the advantage is really only with the FG-FG trade-off. But team you're playing I think could be a factor that could sway the decision. Like do really want to put Mahomes in a position where he has 4 downs to go down the field against a tired defense?

p.s. Chiefs said they were going to kick if they won the toss
 
I am torn. On one hand I want that 3rd possession but I also like knowing what I have to do on the 2nd, including going for the win by going for 2 if the first team gets a TD.
 
Mitchie said:
AAABatteries said:
As I said in the game thread, it’s very close call and makes me really like the new rule as it’s not obvious that one team has a big advantage. I’d receive the ball because:

  1. I get to let my defense rest and possibly put pressure on the other teams offense if I score a TD.
  2. I imagine the percentage of times the teams match scores (TD-TD, FG-FG or punt-punt) is probably 25-50% of the time. If we get to a 3rd possession then it’s mine (save an onside kick).
Others made the point about knowing what you need to do and you can go for it on fourth down and decide to go for two if you get the ball second. All those are valid and what makes it so close. I just imagine there’s a very small favorability to receiving.
Click to expand...
All good points was leaning your way last night but more I think about it, i think kicking has the edge due to the information advantage. And keep in mind if the match scores is TD-TD, the team will go for 2 nearly every time, so the advantage is really only with the FG-FG trade-off. But team you're playing I think could be a factor that could sway the decision. Like do really want to put Mahomes in a position where he has 4 downs to go down the field against a tired defense?

p.s. Chiefs said they were going to kick if they won the toss
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with the points everyone is making. I’m not sure we can even measure the defensive fatigue aspect but SF at least got some time to rest their defense. If SF held KC to a FG and then got the ball back and kicked another FG to win then it looks a lot different. If it was like the college rule where it’s always an even number of possessions then I’d agree it’s a no brainer to kick but I keep coming back to that 3rd possession and whether the value in that is greater than the information you get going 2nd.
 
I imagine the nerds will figure out the percentages....if there is a big enough sample size.

I think the idea that your D can end the game on a D Score and pretty much end the game on a turnover is huge....particularly with the idea that the O can't end the game if they score. Add to that, if you get the ball second; you know what you need to do to win; you're basically not worrying about field position or turnovers on downs.
 
Knew someone would start this thread. Thanks, BL!

Like @AAABatteries I like that this is virgin territory where no one really knows what to think and isn't dug in on their positions.

It ultimately comes down to whether you think the second or third possessions are more important. If you think the game will be decided in the first two, you definitely want to kick. But once you get to the third possession the balance shifts in favor of the receiving team. (Agree it would need to be FG-FG or punt-punt, because if it's TD-TD the second team is definitely going for two)

And yes, the fatigue factor is huge. I'm not sure how you can account for it.

Provisionally, I think I would prefer to kick. But it's super close IMO
 
There's obviously 20/20 hindsight at play, so it's easier to criticize the Niners because it didn't work by taking the ball first.

For a team like the Niners that is predicated on strong defense and an opportunistic offense, I personally would have gone that route in deferring. For sure, the defense may have been gassed, and losing Greenlaw may have been a factor, but only team brass knows that. To me, you'd think that teams would learn by now that you want to avoid Mahomes having the ball last in a potential TD walk-off situation, and that's what happened again.
 
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?
 
The correct strategy against Mahomes is to take the ball and play like you need the TD.

I am not sure the outcome is different if you give KC the third possession.
 
Soulfly3 said:
Multiple #49ers players said after the game that they were not aware of the new overtime rules. The Chiefs, on the other hand, have been planning for this scenario, and DT Chris Jones said they were going to go for two had San Francisco scored a TD, per
@bylindsayhjones


Great job, Shanny! :lol:
Click to expand...
That is super interesting, and suggests that people who studied this question closely concluded it makes sense to kick
 
I think you take the ball no matter the situation. Deferring and then allowing the opposition to score a TD puts you in the worst scenario IMO.

If the 49ers had scored a TD in OT I'm confident they would have won the Super Bowl.
 
Given what everyone is saying about the informational advantage that KC had going second, I wonder if the right strategy would have been for SF to take the ball but treat it like they were behind and go on any close 4th down. Obviously if it's 4th and 12 from the 25 you're probably still kicking, but in a situation like the one they had (I think 4th and 4 from the 9), maybe you ignore what the numbers say -- and for the record, I have no idea what they did say in that situation -- and just be more aggressive because you want to shorten the game.

Of course, the counter to that is that KC has Butker and if you come away with no points and then they get anywhere within FG range the game is probably over
 
HellToupee said:
Love the idea that KC was going for 2 if SF scored a TD
Click to expand...
Unlike the kick/receive decision, that one is a no-brainer.

"Would you rather have your Super Bowl fate rest on the league's best QB making one play, or on your worn-out defense stopping one of the league's best offenses in a sudden-death situation?"
 
Last edited:
ghostguy123 said:
Well, considering I wasn't aware of the new OT rules before this game, question....
If both teams were to score, then we enter sudden death right?
If so, then yes, I'd take the ball first.
Click to expand...

If the other team scores, you go for two when you get the ball.
 
The Niners defense was out of gas . . . they showed that in the Chiefs OT possession. They had just been on the field for 23 plays for the last two KC possessions in regulation. Throwing them out there again to start overtime sounds like a bad idea. Even with half of OT on the sideline, the Niners gave up a 13-play scoring drive. We have no idea what would have happened, but I suspect the Chiefs would have scored a TD if they got the ball to start OT. But at that point, the Chiefs defense would have been well-rested. They got the last drive of regulation off and would have had the opening drive of OT off.
 
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?
 
I think having the ball for the third possession in OT is huge, as that could be the decider if scores are matched on the first two drives. Giving his defense an extra bit of rest was an added bonus, and probably factored into the decision as well. But if you kick off OT first and give up a score, then you score to match, now it's sudden death and we're right back to the "but the # of possessions wasn't equal" scenario everyone's been complaining about forever.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
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?
Click to expand...
The running clock is just to keep track so that if the game continues to go on, they get a break at the end of OT1, and at the end of OT2 there's a new "halftime", so the clock runs for timeout and break/rest purposes. But if the OT1 clock had run out on the Chiefs, they'd still get to continue their drive in what would be OT2 (and I assume they'd swap ends of the field).
 
Of course you kick. Just like he didn’t challenge the Devonta Smith 4th down catch in the NFCC Game last year, take timeouts at the end of the first half, and other small mistakes he’s made over the years. These small details separate a championship coach from a good coach. He’s Marv Levy of the 21st century.
 
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.
 
Desert_Power said:
Kinda feels like taking the FG instead of trying to score the TD on 4th down was the bigger mistake.
Click to expand...

Instinctive said:
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.
Click to expand...
JINX
 
Instinctive said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was yelling at the TV to go for it. The rest of the room thought I was crazy.
 
fantasycurse42 said:
Of course you kick. Just like he didn’t challenge the Devonta Smith 4th down catch in the NFCC Game last year, take timeouts at the end of the first half, and other small mistakes he’s made over the years. These small details separate a championship coach from a good coach. He’s Marv Levy of the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Context matters.

This comes off as using anything as an excuse to hate on Shanny.

The fact is the defense was just on the field for the entire Chief’s FG drive to tie the game.

Receiving the ball was the only practical decision in the moment. Kicking off and putting your winded defense in that precarious position would have been coaching malpractice.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Shanahan. This isn’t one of them.
 
Instinctive said:
Desert_Power said:
Kinda feels like taking the FG instead of trying to score the TD on 4th down was the bigger mistake.
Click to expand...

Instinctive said:
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.
Click to expand...
JINX
Click to expand...
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
 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
fantasycurse42 said:
Of course you kick. Just like he didn’t challenge the Devonta Smith 4th down catch in the NFCC Game last year, take timeouts at the end of the first half, and other small mistakes he’s made over the years. These small details separate a championship coach from a good coach. He’s Marv Levy of the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Context matters.

This comes off as using anything as an excuse to hate on Shanny.

The fact is the defense was just on the field for the entire Chief’s FG drive to tie the game.

Receiving the ball was the only practical decision in the moment. Kicking off and putting your winded defense in that precarious position would have been coaching malpractice.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Shanahan. This isn’t one of them.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Shanny is not a great in-game coach (neither was Reid back in the day), and not preparing his team for the new OT rules was coaching malpractice, but beyond that I don't see a lot of in-game decisions that were obviously wrong. You can nitpick a million things, and given how close the game was, declare any of them to be decisive, but I don't think he was the reason they lost
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Instinctive said:
Desert_Power said:
Kinda feels like taking the FG instead of trying to score the TD on 4th down was the bigger mistake.
Click to expand...

Instinctive said:
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.
Click to expand...
JINX
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
Possibly - I also mean less about the specific 4th and Goal from where they were and more that you might call plays a little differently and that 4th and goal could be closer to the endzone too. That final red zone trip felt like the least "schemed to get my best players in advantageous situations" vs rest of game too.
 
Joe Bryant said:
The rest for the defense is a pretty big deal though. I can see it.
Click to expand...

Yes resting the defense really paid off /s

To me the only correct answer was you kickoff. You can't give mahones 4 downs to make 10 yards. You just can't do that. It has to be in your mind that this is the greatest QB to ever play the game and you are going to give him an additional down all the way down the field? That's crazy talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChiefD
If Your Homer Team Can't Win The Super Bowl - Who Do You Like?
2
Replies
84
Views
2K
Wingnut
Wingnut
Yogibear
Roger Craig, Tom Coughlin & Mike Shanahan named finalists for Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2024
Replies
11
Views
737
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy
Ministry of Pain
  • Poll
Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC?
12 13 14
Replies
655
Views
9K
kutta
kutta

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top