Should Kyle Shanahan have kicked off to begin OT of Super Bowl LVIII? (2 Viewers)

[Leroy Hoard]

This has seen a lot more discussion than any of the Campbell decisions from the NFCCG

Really? That thread is on its 14th page and counting, this one just started its 3rd.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

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.

Yeah. I love Shanny. I think he's the smartest coach in the NFL. But I do think he messed these two situations just the slightest bit. **** happens in games. You should expect WRs to drop balls, fumbles to happen, refs to call holding, and the other team to play well. But you can control your play calling. And to me he forgets to get ahead of the chains when he can close out a game. A 3 yard run on 1st is very valuable. Versus a -8 pass that puts his team in 2 and 18. And that call was all him. KC read it perfectly to their credit. And the WR in a perfect world should have batted the ball down. C'est la vie. All hindsight I guess. But Romo was all over it after halftime so it's not like it wasn;'t obvious to someone that played the game.

 

[titusbramble]

This has seen a lot more discussion than any of the Campbell decisions from the NFCCG

Really? That thread is on its 14th page and counting, this one just started its 3rd.

I was meaning where I discuss elsewhere, not here - the Campbell decisions didn't even generate a single post

 

[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.

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.

Yeah. I love Shanny. I think he's the smartest coach in the NFL. But I do think he messed these two situations just the slightest bit. **** happens in games. You should expect WRs to drop balls, fumbles to happen, refs to call holding, and the other team to play well. But you can control your play calling. And to me he forgets to get ahead of the chains when he can close out a game. A 3 yard run on 1st is very valuable. Versus a -8 pass that puts his team in 2 and 18. And that call was all him. KC read it perfectly to their credit. And the WR in a perfect world should have batted the ball down. C'est la vie. All hindsight I guess. But Romo was all over it after halftime so it's not like it wasn;'t obvious to someone that played the game.

Well, if the line doesn’t collapse & Moody doesn’t have his PAT blocked the 49ers probably win in regulation and we aren’t even having this topic, so…

Shanahan had nothing to do with that one either. I’m just sayin.

 

[Gally]

Well, if the line doesn’t collapse & Moody doesn’t have his PAT blocked the 49ers win in regulation and we aren’t even having this topic, so…

Not necessarily true. Being down 4 would be different play calls. KC doesn't settle for a tying FG either. A non block may have led to a loss in regulation.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Niner players not knowing the rules isn't the same as the coaching staff not knowing the rules.

 

[Terpman22]

Niner players not knowing the rules isn't the same as the coaching staff not knowing the rules.

Degrees of difference but under the same umbrella. Having neither know its a big big problem.

 

[efactor]

Well, if the line doesn’t collapse & Moody doesn’t have his PAT blocked the 49ers win in regulation and we aren’t even having this topic, so…

Not necessarily true. Being down 4 would be different play calls. KC doesn't settle for a tying FG either. A non block may have led to a loss in regulation.

True but I sure would have liked to have that additional point

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Well, if the line doesn’t collapse & Moody doesn’t have his PAT blocked the 49ers win in regulation and we aren’t even having this topic, so…

Not necessarily true. Being down 4 would be different play calls. KC doesn't settle for a tying FG either. A non block may have led to a loss in regulation.

I meant to type “probably”, but my fingers were moving faster than my (slightly hungover) brain.

But you make a fair point.

 

[Dez]

Didn't read every post so I am sure someone mentioned this.

The main downfall for kicking 1st is if it goes FG then FG or if it goes punt then punt then the next score wins.

KC said they were going to kick off anyway if they won the toss. So if SF had made a big play there in the Red Zone and it was like 4th and 10 from the 15 then KC would have had to kick the FG.

Thus now the game goes to sudden death and SF gets the ball 1st.

So this isn't like college where you clearly want the ball 2nd. This is a really tough call and I can see doing it either way there are advantages and disadvantages either way.

 

[Terpman22]

Didn't read every post so I am sure someone mentioned this.

The main downfall for kicking 1st is if it goes FG then FG or if it goes punt then punt then the next score wins.

KC said they were going to kick off anyway if they won the toss. So if SF had made a big play there in the Red Zone and it was like 4th and 10 from the 15 then KC would have had to kick the FG.

Thus now the game goes to sudden death and SF gets the ball 1st.

So this isn't like college where you clearly want the ball 2nd. This is a really tough call and I can see doing it either way there are advantages and disadvantages either way.

I think knowing what you are up against is the big thing here. KC is on record saying that they were not going to let the 49ers have multiple possessions b/c if they had scored a TD, KC would have gone for 2 if they needed to match a TD.

Where when you take the ball first, you don't really know what you need "at maximum"

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Didn't read every post so I am sure someone mentioned this.

The main downfall for kicking 1st is if it goes FG then FG or if it goes punt then punt then the next score wins.

KC said they were going to kick off anyway if they won the toss. So if SF had made a big play there in the Red Zone and it was like 4th and 10 from the 15 then KC would have had to kick the FG.

Thus now the game goes to sudden death and SF gets the ball 1st.

So this isn't like college where you clearly want the ball 2nd. This is a really tough call and I can see doing it either way there are advantages and disadvantages either way.

I think knowing what you are up against is the big thing here. KC is on record saying that they were not going to let the 49ers have multiple possessions b/c if they had scored a TD, KC would have gone for 2 if they needed to match a TD.

Yes, but that was only if they scored a TD. They could have been forced to punt, and if it had been 4th and 12 from the 30 I'm sure they would have kicked the FG. Heck, both teams could have gone for it on 4th down and failed. KC clearly wanted to shorten the game, but that doesn't meant they would have succeeded

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

This never really occurred to me until just now, but the fact that teams have always chosen to receive in OT is a huge fail.

Think about the opening kick. Yes, most teams defer, but no one really thinks that it has a huge impact on the game either way. My assumption is that, if you look at the distribution of wins based on initial coin toss, it would be exactly 50/50.

So the fact that games have featured a 57/43, or even 53/47 coin toss is ridiculous when you think about it. The goal should always be 50/50. We should always be debating whether it was the right decision. If people are always choosing to receive, that means they recognize that it gives them an unfair advantage. Yes, you can say the defense should get a stop, but statistically, they're less likely to do so.

I get that in the regular season there's more of an incentive toward keeping the games shorter, but in theory, if this model makes OT a 50/50 proposition, it should be adopted across all games

 

[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.

This never really occurred to me until just now, but the fact that

Cmon man, don’t leave us hangin’! The suspense is killing me!

 

[ShamrockPride]

The fact some players didn't know the rules is yet another strike against Shanahan.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

This never really occurred to me until just now, but the fact that

Cmon man, don’t leave us hangin’! The suspense is killing me!

Stupid oversensitive trackpad submitted the post while I was in the middle of typing. It's fixed now

 

[Brunell4MVP]

The fact some players didn't know the rules is yet another strike against Shanahan.

We aren't talking the brightest guys in the world. They have immense physical talents. And some are indeed smart. But many could have it written on their wrist, be told to read it every hour for a month, and still not remember it. I'm sure they were all told. Lots of these cats got through HS and college by a thread while taking some damn simple classes. Can you imagine Antonio Brown in a calculus class?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The fact some players didn't know the rules is yet another strike against Shanahan.

We aren't talking the brightest guys in the world. They have immense physical talents. And some are indeed smart. But many could have it written on their wrist, be told to read it every hour for a month, and still not remember it. I'm sure they were all told. Lots of these cats got through HS and college by a thread while taking some damn simple classes. Can you imagine Antonio Brown in a calculus class?

I still remember the game a few years ago when Donovan McNabb didn't realize a regular-season game could end in a tie. I don't think every player needs to know all this stuff, but it feels like the starting QB probably should

 

[rockaction]

Even though Romo was explaining it, I was still unaware the Chiefs got their full possession regardless of time. Part of me just doesn't trust Romo—or anybody affiliated with CBS—to have accurate information about that.

We find out that they would have been allowed to continue the drive, but I'm sort of glad there wasn't added confusion like that.

As to the broader issue, I think it's a coin flip whether you kick or receive because of factors already considered in this thread.

I will say this: If I'm Kyle Shanahan, I kick off but I might have gone for it on fourth and four. I was cheering for KC (I'll admit it) and I was relieved when they brought the FG unit on the field. That's kind of how you know in your heart what the right call is.

 

[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.

This never really occurred to me until just now, but the fact that

Cmon man, don’t leave us hangin’! The suspense is killing me!

Stupid oversensitive trackpad submitted the post while I was in the middle of typing. It's fixed now

Whew - that was a cliffhanger!

 

[IHEARTFF]

The fact some players didn't know the rules is yet another strike against Shanahan.

We aren't talking the brightest guys in the world. They have immense physical talents. And some are indeed smart. But many could have it written on their wrist, be told to read it every hour for a month, and still not remember it. I'm sure they were all told. Lots of these cats got through HS and college by a thread while taking some damn simple classes. Can you imagine Antonio Brown in a calculus class?

Yeah I can imagine it has been discussed in every locker room but information retention on obscure playoff OT rules might not have sunk in.

 

[dickey moe]

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.

A TD scoring contest in OT would be wild but dangerous.

 

[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

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.

A TD scoring contest in OT would be wild but dangerous.

Isn't that basically what college football has? After the first couple OTs, the teams just trade off two-point conversion attempts

 

[efactor]

The fact some players didn't know the rules is yet another strike against Shanahan.

We aren't talking the brightest guys in the world. They have immense physical talents. And some are indeed smart. But many could have it written on their wrist, be told to read it every hour for a month, and still not remember it. I'm sure they were all told. Lots of these cats got through HS and college by a thread while taking some damn simple classes. Can you imagine Antonio Brown in a calculus class?

Ha. Was thinking this myself. It’s only a few guys saying that didn’t know. Seems most of the team knew so why didn’t they?

I work in the financial field and there are multiple people in my office that “don’t know” things that have been covered in meetings and detailed emails. Sometimes you just don’t listen or absorb.

 

[kewin316]

Yes, but SF needed to score a TD to make it a good decision.

 

[babydemon90]

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.

Do they bring Usher back out again?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I’d be favor of the NFL just doing a college-style OT, maybe starting from the 35 or 40 to account for pro kickers being really good. The only argument I ever recall against it was that it wasn’t real football without kickoffs and punts, but the league keeps changing the rules to make sure nothing ever happens on a kickoff or punt, so it seems like that would be a win.

 

[titusbramble]

Interesting to note that someone on the Chefs indicated that in the event of a SF TD they would go for two, which negates a bunch of "but SF might get a third possession where it's next goal wins" arguments

 

[Instinctive]

Interesting to note that someone on the Chefs indicated that in the event of a SF TD they would go for two, which negates a bunch of "but SF might get a third possession where it's next goal wins" arguments

Not really. SF could have decided to take the ball first, score a TD, and go for two.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Interesting to note that someone on the Chefs indicated that in the event of a SF TD they would go for two, which negates a bunch of "but SF might get a third possession where it's next goal wins" arguments

It was Mahomes, and only applies if both teams score a TD. If they go FG-FG or punt-punt, then SF gets the ball back with sudden death

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Interesting to note that someone on the Chefs indicated that in the event of a SF TD they would go for two, which negates a bunch of "but SF might get a third possession where it's next goal wins" arguments

It was Mahomes, and only applies if both teams score a TD. If they go FG-FG or punt-punt, then SF gets the ball back with sudden death

Who do you trust more on analytics and in-game decisions? Andy Reid or Kyle Shanahan?

Reid would have kicked first. Shanahan received. Without knowing anything other than that info, the answer is intuitive.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Considering kc had 4 fg and 1 td, assuming more fgs was fine to take ball first

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'd like to see what the analytics say but I think knowing exactly what you need on your 1st possession is more valuable then making sure you get the 1st sudden death possession in the event of the first 2 possessions matching. But I think it's close enough you could go either way especially when you factor in the tired defense part of it.

 

[massraider]

I'd like to see what the analytics say but I think knowing exactly what you need on your 1st possession is more valuable than making sure you get the 1st sudden death possession in the event of the first 2 possessions matching. But I think it's close enough you could go either way especially when you factor in the tired defense part of it.

I agree, and I think if you kick off you are guaranteed the ball, no matter what the offense does, and you CAN end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily.

I def prefer kicking off.

 

[jm192]

I don't think it's black and white.

As others have pointed out--the SF defense had been on the field a while. Taking the ball to give them a breather is a defensible thing.

Shannahn said in the presser that his thought was if both teams scored, they would have the ball 1st in the sudden death part of the game. That's defensible.

It sounds like the SF players didn't have an understanding of the OT rules. It sounds like they weren't really talking about a specific plan. And I think that's more problematic than deciding to take the ball.

 

[Instinctive]

I'd like to see what the analytics say but I think knowing exactly what you need on your 1st possession is more valuable than making sure you get the 1st sudden death possession in the event of the first 2 possessions matching. But I think it's close enough you could go either way especially when you factor in the tired defense part of it.

I agree, and I think if you kick off you are guaranteed the ball, no matter what the offense does, and you CAN end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily.

I def prefer kicking off.

Here's the thing though:

1. Let's say you don't score, punt, and they have the ball on the 25. Can't you still end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily?
2. if you receive, aren't you guaranteed the ball? Or are we assuming there'll be a sudden overtime rash of trying to return kicks from out the back of the end zone and fumbling them?

I generally agree that this is probably a super close call that may not even have a right answer as the going wisdom but will depend on things like "my defense is tired right now" - but let's have good reasons if we're going o favor one side over the other.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'd like to see what the analytics say but I think knowing exactly what you need on your 1st possession is more valuable than making sure you get the 1st sudden death possession in the event of the first 2 possessions matching. But I think it's close enough you could go either way especially when you factor in the tired defense part of it.

I agree, and I think if you kick off you are guaranteed the ball, no matter what the offense does, and you CAN end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily.

I def prefer kicking off.

Here's the thing though:

1. Let's say you don't score, punt, and they have the ball on the 25. Can't you still end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily?
2. if you receive, aren't you guaranteed the ball? Or are we assuming there'll be a sudden overtime rash of trying to return kicks from out the back of the end zone and fumbling them?

I generally agree that this is probably a super close call that may not even have a right answer as the going wisdom but will depend on things like "my defense is tired right now" - but let's have good reasons if we're going o favor one side over the other.

We're probably talking about small numbers at this point, but I guess the counter point would be that the kicking team's defense gets the opportunity to essentially end the game with a turnover first, while the receiving team's defense will never get a chance to match that if they do (since the kicking team would essentially just be taking knees and kicking a FG, not playing real offense).

The only team that has an opportunity to essentially end the game on the 1st possession of overtime is the kicking team. If they do, then the receiving team's defense never even gets an opportunity to try and force a turnover that would essentially end the game.

 

[massraider]

Here's the thing though:

1. Let's say you don't score, punt, and they have the ball on the 25. Can't you still end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily?
2. if you receive, aren't you guaranteed the ball? Or are we assuming there'll be a sudden overtime rash of trying to return kicks from out the back of the end zone and fumbling them?

I generally agree that this is probably a super close call that may not even have a right answer as the going wisdom but will depend on things like "my defense is tired right now" - but let's have good reasons if we're going o favor one side over the other.

Regarding your first point: Definitely. At that point, there's all kinds of sudden death. I want the chance to end it as quick as possible, and the only way it ends on the first drive is a turnover.

And hey, if you receive the ball, and go down and get a TD, that's the best option. Make them HAVE to get a TD. SF received the ball, and got a FG, which really puts KC in a nice state of mind.

Taking the ball, and getting a FG is really not great. It looks a lot better if you get a TD. (HOT TAKE)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I guess that if San Fran had scored a TD on their opening drive that they would not have won 25-19 automatically.
I was under the impression that when a team drives down for a TD on the opening drive of OT, game over
I also thought overtime was 10 minute periods after about a decade where I would routinely ask in game threads, "When did they go to 10 minute OT periods?"

Event he players don't know what the Overtime Rules are
Wish the NFL would clean this up and make it easy for everyone to understand what's happening
An average fan that maybe tunes intot eh Super Bowl was probably thinking shenanigans in that Overtime
Had Kelce scored on the play before Hardman, you would have really seen some folks step out and say "Scripted"

I don't think the games are scripted or rigged but the NFL makes it tough to just overlook at times.

 

[Bri]

I think too much has been made of this.
It's like we're preprogrammed by the prior rule to believe a bad choice means everything.

Mahomes was going to get the ball regardless and they were going to have to stop him.

The 49ers problem was after their LB tore his Achilles, Kelce woke up and was often too open.

There were a couple nice moves which kudos to Kelce n all, but what's always bothered me about watching him is why the heck is he regularly so open?
When the Titans were noted for doing so well against him, they had Jayon Brown and/or Kevin Byard follow him everywhere. Maybe two more teams have done this. Why? It's so elementary!
Tony G and Gates had defenders draped on them. Why is this guy always so open? I swear I'm gonna be muttering this as I'm committed to some psych ward. It's mind boggling.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I guess that if San Fran had scored a TD on their opening drive that they would not have won 25-19 automatically.
I was under the impression that when a team drives down for a TD on the opening drive of OT, game over
I also thought overtime was 10 minute periods after about a decade where I would routinely ask in game threads, "When did they got to 10 minute OT periods?"

Event he players don't know what the Overtime Rules are
Wish the NFL would clean this up and make it easy for everyone to understand what's happening
An average fan that maybe tunes intot eh Super Bowl was probably thinking shenanigans in that Overtime
Had Kelce scored on the play before Hardman, you would have really seen some folks step out and say "Scripted"

I don't think the games are scripted or rigged but the NFL makes it tough to just overlook at times.

They explained it at least 100 times during the broadcast.

It's a new rule they put in after everyone asked for it after the Bills/Chiefs game a few years ago. They used to have simpler overtime rules and everyone hated it, and asked for this.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I guess that if San Fran had scored a TD on their opening drive that they would not have won 25-19 automatically.
I was under the impression that when a team drives down for a TD on the opening drive of OT, game over
I also thought overtime was 10 minute periods after about a decade where I would routinely ask in game threads, "When did they got to 10 minute OT periods?"

Event he players don't know what the Overtime Rules are
Wish the NFL would clean this up and make it easy for everyone to understand what's happening
An average fan that maybe tunes intot eh Super Bowl was probably thinking shenanigans in that Overtime
Had Kelce scored on the play before Hardman, you would have really seen some folks step out and say "Scripted"

I don't think the games are scripted or rigged but the NFL makes it tough to just overlook at times.

They explained it at least 100 times during the broadcast.

It's a new rule they put in after everyone asked for it after the Bills/Chiefs game a few years ago. They used to have simpler overtime rules and everyone hated it, and asked for this.

Who listens to the booth/broadcast?
100x, I never heard it once

 

[Instinctive]

Here's the thing though:

1. Let's say you don't score, punt, and they have the ball on the 25. Can't you still end the game with a turnover and a cheap field goal quite easily?
2. if you receive, aren't you guaranteed the ball? Or are we assuming there'll be a sudden overtime rash of trying to return kicks from out the back of the end zone and fumbling them?

I generally agree that this is probably a super close call that may not even have a right answer as the going wisdom but will depend on things like "my defense is tired right now" - but let's have good reasons if we're going o favor one side over the other.

Regarding your first point: Definitely. At that point, there's all kinds of sudden death. I want the chance to end it as quick as possible, and the only way it ends on the first drive is a turnover.

And hey, if you receive the ball, and go down and get a TD, that's the best option. Make them HAVE to get a TD. SF received the ball, and got a FG, which really puts KC in a nice state of mind.

Taking the ball, and getting a FG is really not great. It looks a lot better if you get a TD. (HOT TAKE)

Well yeah I just don't see how that's affected by kicking or receiving. If KC received, scored a TD, and then SF came down and was in the same spot, the only difference is they'd have gone for it and either lost or tied.

I'd argue they should have gone for it on 4th anyway and they'd have at least had better field position for the defense if they didn't get it.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Interesting to note that someone on the Chefs indicated that in the event of a SF TD they would go for two, which negates a bunch of "but SF might get a third possession where it's next goal wins" arguments

Not really. SF could have decided to take the ball first, score a TD, and go for two.

I initially had the same thought, but @ZWK made what I thought was a pretty convincing argument against it: Using simplified percentages and assuming both teams score TDs on their opening drive, if SF fails to convert the 2PC they are guaranteed to lose, whereas if they succeed they still only have a 50% chance of winning + whatever their chances are in sudden death. Meanwhile, if they kick the XP, they win if they stop the 2PC.

It comes out to something like 62/38 in favor of kicking. Maybe you could argue that certain factors nudge it more in favor of going for it, but that's a pretty big gap to overcome.

I still haven't seen any numbers on whether they should have gone for it on 4th and 4 from the 9. As I said upthread, I think you have to look at what the analytics recommend in a typical situation and then dial up the aggressiveness given the value of a TD in that situation. But I'm open to having my mind changed

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think that the "Niners didn't know the rules" story has been a bit overhyped -- I don't think a few of the guys not knowing the exact rule really had an impact on the outcome.

Still, how hilarious would it have been if Juszczyk had scored a TD on the opening drive and started celebrating what he thought was a Super Bowl win?

 

[Gold Fox]

I think that the "Niners didn't know the rules" story has been a bit overhyped -- I don't think a few of the guys not knowing the exact rule really had an impact on the outcome.

Still, how hilarious would it have been pretty if Juszczyk had scored a TD on the opening drive and started celebrating what he thought was a Super Bowl win?

What would have been pure chaos is if the stadium workers start releasing confetti!

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think that the "Niners didn't know the rules" story has been a bit overhyped -- I don't think a few of the guys not knowing the exact rule really had an impact on the outcome.

Still, how hilarious would it have been pretty if Juszczyk had scored a TD on the opening drive and started celebrating what he thought was a Super Bowl win?

What would have been pure chaos is if the stadium workers start releasing confetti!

Aw man, now I'm kind of wishing it had happened. It would have been right up there with the Oscars Moonlight/La-La Land debacle #embracethechaos

 

[BassNBrew]

I guess that if San Fran had scored a TD on their opening drive that they would not have won 25-19 automatically.
I was under the impression that when a team drives down for a TD on the opening drive of OT, game over
I also thought overtime was 10 minute periods after about a decade where I would routinely ask in game threads, "When did they got to 10 minute OT periods?"

Event he players don't know what the Overtime Rules are
Wish the NFL would clean this up and make it easy for everyone to understand what's happening
An average fan that maybe tunes intot eh Super Bowl was probably thinking shenanigans in that Overtime
Had Kelce scored on the play before Hardman, you would have really seen some folks step out and say "Scripted"

I don't think the games are scripted or rigged but the NFL makes it tough to just overlook at times.

They explained it at least 100 times during the broadcast.

It's a new rule they put in after everyone asked for it after the Bills/Chiefs game a few years ago. They used to have simpler overtime rules and everyone hated it, and asked for this.

Who listens to the booth/broadcast?
100x, I never heard it once

I knew it before the game and I'm not paid millions of dollars a year. Wish they'd roll this rule into the regular season, it's awesome.

 

[N Zone]

You should kickoff in playoff overtime. The team that receives the ball gets 3 downs. If that first team does score 3 or 7, then the team that gets the ball next gets 4 downs to get 10 the entire drive along with knowing what they need to tie and to win.

 

[N Zone]

Going for 2 should be as automatic as an extra point, especially going for 2 to win the game. Teams should have a few play calls that are so good and so well practiced that it's automatic.