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

[ignatiusjreilly]

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread, but IMO... I really had no problem with Shanahan's decision/explanation in the heat of the moment UNTIL I heard that the Chiefs' plan would have been to go for 2 after a second possession, to prevent a 3rd (advantage SF) possession. I didn't think of that when I was playing things out in my head as things unfolded. For that reason, I think everyone from here on out will choose to take the ball second, instead of trying to get that 3rd possession advantage. Kudos to the Chiefs coaches for thinking of that.

I think the next coach facing this decision will choose to kick because they saw how much crap Shanahan took for receiving

 

[ghostguy123]

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread, but IMO... I really had no problem with Shanahan's decision/explanation in the heat of the moment UNTIL I heard that the Chiefs' plan would have been to go for 2 after a second possession, to prevent a 3rd (advantage SF) possession. I didn't think of that when I was playing things out in my head as things unfolded. For that reason, I think everyone from here on out will choose to take the ball second, instead of trying to get that 3rd possession advantage. Kudos to the Chiefs coaches for thinking of that.

I think the next coach facing this decision will choose to kick because they saw how much crap Shanahan took for receiving

And then that coach will lose on the 3rd possession, and it will switch back.

 

[DropKick]

I don't get the outrage at all. I'd want the 3rd possession because then it becomes sudden death. I'd receive

I'm with you. They also put a tired Chief's D back on the field. Not going to judge based on hindsight.

Injuries clearly hurt the 49ers. The experience of Mahomes gave KC a big edge. Both teams struggled at times and shined at others. We saw players on both teams give their all - I hated to see either team lose - although it was inevitable.

 

[jobarules]

I don't get the outrage at all. I'd want the 3rd possession because then it becomes sudden death. I'd receive

I'm with you. They also put a tired Chief's D back on the field. Not going to judge based on hindsight.

Injuries clearly hurt the 49ers. The experience of Mahomes gave KC a big edge. Both teams struggled at times and shined at others. We saw players on both teams give their all - I hated to see either team lose - although it was inevitable.

They lost that game in the first 3 qtrs. Not 4th or OT. No matter who got ball first Mahomes was winning

 

[BassNBrew]

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread, but IMO... I really had no problem with Shanahan's decision/explanation in the heat of the moment UNTIL I heard that the Chiefs' plan would have been to go for 2 after a second possession, to prevent a 3rd (advantage SF) possession. I didn't think of that when I was playing things out in my head as things unfolded. For that reason, I think everyone from here on out will choose to take the ball second, instead of trying to get that 3rd possession advantage. Kudos to the Chiefs coaches for thinking of that.

I think the next coach facing this decision will choose to kick because they saw how much crap Shanahan took for receiving

And then that coach will lose on the 3rd possession, and it will switch back.

With the 2nd possession you don’t ever have to let it get to a 3rd possession (sans a few exceptions where penalties leave you in a 4th and 20 still in fg range.

 

[ghostguy123]

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread, but IMO... I really had no problem with Shanahan's decision/explanation in the heat of the moment UNTIL I heard that the Chiefs' plan would have been to go for 2 after a second possession, to prevent a 3rd (advantage SF) possession. I didn't think of that when I was playing things out in my head as things unfolded. For that reason, I think everyone from here on out will choose to take the ball second, instead of trying to get that 3rd possession advantage. Kudos to the Chiefs coaches for thinking of that.

I think the next coach facing this decision will choose to kick because they saw how much crap Shanahan took for receiving

And then that coach will lose on the 3rd possession, and it will switch back.

With the 2nd possession you don’t ever have to let it get to a 3rd possession (sans a few exceptions where penalties leave you in a 4th and 20 still in fg range.

Huh?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Two good follow-ups on the Topic That Won't Die:

First, Peter King revisited it in his FMIA column today:

About Shanahan’s decision to take the ball in OT. I understand one part of the criticism leveled at Shanahan about taking the ball to start overtime. Many of his players say they didn’t know the new overtime rules, and so if they’d scored a TD on the first possession, they could have gotten an unsportsmanlike penalty that would have shortened the field for Mahomes. That’s bad. But last week, I talked to one team analytics guy on background and to Keegan Abdoo of Next Gen Stats. Neither had a problem with Shanahan’s decision—they both felt it was nearly a tossup whether to take the ball or kick.

“We went through the analytics,” Shanahan said post-game, “and we just decided we wanted the ball third.” So if the teams were scoreless on the first two drives of OT, or if they matched field goals, or if they matched TDs and PATs, San Francisco would get the ball third, and a field goal would win the Super Bowl.

There are two things people have ignored in lighting up Shanahan: One, his defense played 39 snaps in the second half and had recently left the field after an 11-play KC drive to tie the game with three seconds left in regulation. The defense was gassed. Two, interesting note from Lindsay Jones of The Ringer. She quoted Chris Jones as saying they’d have gone for two if a TD on the second possession left them trailing by one. And of course you like Mahomes’ chances to convert, right? However, did you know Mahomes hadn’t tried a two-point conversion in KC’s last 108 quarters of football? [More about this in Factoidness, below.] That should be factored in.

I asked an independent analyst who consults with five NFL teams, Mike McRoberts of Championship Analytics, his opinion about the decision. “I thought it was almost a tossup,” McRoberts said. “Gun to my head, I would have done what Kyle did. Whoever designed this rule did a good job, because the outcome should not be determined by the coin flip, and each team gets at least one full possession. It’s not gimmicky at all.”

Then Bill Barnwell did a deep dive on the entire OT. TLDR: He identifies Shanahan's biggest mistake not as the coin flip (which he agrees was 50/50) or even kicking the FG on fourth down, but not running it on third to at least set up a more makeable fourth-down attempt:

Shanahan said he wasn't thinking about going for it on fourth-and-4, and that's where his mistake came in. On third down, the 49ers came out in 11 personnel (one running back, one tight end and three wide receivers), and the Chiefs matched with their dime personnel package (six defensive backs). There wasn't even a pretense of running the ball, as Purdy lined up in empty and had Christian McCaffrey move across the formation in motion.

The league's most aggressive fourth-down offenses gain an advantage on third down by being willing to run in situations where teams typically throw the ball. Third-and-4 (or even longer) can be a run down for the Eagles, Lions and Ravens, because they're comfortable either picking up the first down or going for it on fourth-and-short. In 2023, on third down with 3-to-5 yards to go in games where each team still had at least a 20% win probability, Shanahan called 16 passes on 17 plays. The Lions called 29 passes on 39 plays. The Eagles called 24 passes on 41 plays. Purdy isn't Jalen Hurts, but the 49ers have a great rushing attack, and the Chiefs aren't a great run defense, even if they were better than expected against San Francisco.

Shanahan has run on third-and-long before, with Raheem Mostert's third-and-8 trap against the Packers in the 2019 NFC Championship Game as a famous example, but if he wasn't thinking about going for it on fourth down, it had an impact on his third-down call. Running the ball on that third-and-4 could have converted on its own. It also could have set up a fourth-and-short that would have tipped the scales toward going for it and potentially converting for a touchdown. The bigger issue with what happened on third down was the pass protection, but if Shanahan was more open toward going for it on fourth-and-short, the 49ers would be a more dynamic offense on third down. Without knowing how things would play out, the 49ers probably would have been better off running on third-and-4, especially given how the Chiefs matched with their personnel.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Then Bill Barnwell did a deep dive on the entire OT. TLDR: He identifies Shanahan's biggest mistake not as the coin flip (which he agrees was 50/50)

A good chunk of his reasoning in various sections is that you need to defend against/take advantage the opposition making sub optimal choices. That is (in this context) teams will play to extend the game rather than win it and you need to account for this, and it helps in adding value to that third possession. That doesn't seem to apply in going against KC.

I'm torn on what I think about that idea, both in this context and in a broader one.

but not running it on third to at least set up a more makeable fourth-down attempt

This was my thought in the moment, but seeing how that passing play was a walk-in touchdown absent one missed block it is harder to criticize that play call. (I would have ran it, but that was after seeing the Chiefs benefit from back-to-back games where fans of their opponent lost their voices begging the Ravens and then the 49ers to just run the ball.)

 

[Gally]

Beyond that, I have to believe that if KC gets bogged down between the 15 and 45 yard line like they basically had the entire game, and then the 49ers have possession three and run down and kick a 40 yard FG and win, everyone thinks it's a genius move. Too many of the arguments in here seem based on what did happen vs what was likely to or could happen.

but, but, but.......KC had the momentum (just kidding but I had to make the comment).

I agree, that much of the argument is based on after the fact reasoning. I still think those of the "take second possession" choice because you can go for two after a TD and not bring the 3rd possession into play don't seem to factor in that the team getting the ball first could just as easily go for two if they scored a TD as well to force a 3rd possession at worst (if they make it). There are many things that need to be factored into the ultimate decision and I think it's too soon to come to any definitive conclusions on what is "right" because there has only been one instance of this situation in history.

For me, I don't really care about choosing the ball or not (at this point) but I think if you do get the ball first you need to be more aggressive about going for a TD. I think once you get inside the 20 you are in 4 down territory because if you don't make it you give the other team a longer field to try and get in FG range and the benefit of getting the TD outweighs the benefit of a FG attempt.

 

[Gally]

Something I've been wondering about since Sunday: We constantly hear that defensive fatigue is a factor to consider in this situation; is there a reason defensive fatigue is so much more important than offensive fatigue? I assume what people generally mean is that a gassed DL will get pushed around by the other team's OL, but why wouldn't the OL be just as tired?

It's much more tiring chasing, absorbing blows, reacting, etc. Defense is usually harder physically to play which is why DL usually get subbed out throughout the game playing 50-60% of the snaps where OL usually play the entire game (barring injury).

 

[DropKick]

Two good follow-ups on the Topic That Won't Die:

First, Peter King revisited it in his FMIA column today:

About Shanahan’s decision to take the ball in OT. I understand one part of the criticism leveled at Shanahan about taking the ball to start overtime. Many of his players say they didn’t know the new overtime rules, and so if they’d scored a TD on the first possession, they could have gotten an unsportsmanlike penalty that would have shortened the field for Mahomes. That’s bad. But last week, I talked to one team analytics guy on background and to Keegan Abdoo of Next Gen Stats. Neither had a problem with Shanahan’s decision—they both felt it was nearly a tossup whether to take the ball or kick.

“We went through the analytics,” Shanahan said post-game, “and we just decided we wanted the ball third.” So if the teams were scoreless on the first two drives of OT, or if they matched field goals, or if they matched TDs and PATs, San Francisco would get the ball third, and a field goal would win the Super Bowl.

There are two things people have ignored in lighting up Shanahan: One, his defense played 39 snaps in the second half and had recently left the field after an 11-play KC drive to tie the game with three seconds left in regulation. The defense was gassed. Two, interesting note from Lindsay Jones of The Ringer. She quoted Chris Jones as saying they’d have gone for two if a TD on the second possession left them trailing by one. And of course you like Mahomes’ chances to convert, right? However, did you know Mahomes hadn’t tried a two-point conversion in KC’s last 108 quarters of football? [More about this in Factoidness, below.] That should be factored in.

I asked an independent analyst who consults with five NFL teams, Mike McRoberts of Championship Analytics, his opinion about the decision. “I thought it was almost a tossup,” McRoberts said. “Gun to my head, I would have done what Kyle did. Whoever designed this rule did a good job, because the outcome should not be determined by the coin flip, and each team gets at least one full possession. It’s not gimmicky at all.”

Then Bill Barnwell did a deep dive on the entire OT. TLDR: He identifies Shanahan's biggest mistake not as the coin flip (which he agrees was 50/50) or even kicking the FG on fourth down, but not running it on third to at least set up a more makeable fourth-down attempt:

Shanahan said he wasn't thinking about going for it on fourth-and-4, and that's where his mistake came in. On third down, the 49ers came out in 11 personnel (one running back, one tight end and three wide receivers), and the Chiefs matched with their dime personnel package (six defensive backs). There wasn't even a pretense of running the ball, as Purdy lined up in empty and had Christian McCaffrey move across the formation in motion.

The league's most aggressive fourth-down offenses gain an advantage on third down by being willing to run in situations where teams typically throw the ball. Third-and-4 (or even longer) can be a run down for the Eagles, Lions and Ravens, because they're comfortable either picking up the first down or going for it on fourth-and-short. In 2023, on third down with 3-to-5 yards to go in games where each team still had at least a 20% win probability, Shanahan called 16 passes on 17 plays. The Lions called 29 passes on 39 plays. The Eagles called 24 passes on 41 plays. Purdy isn't Jalen Hurts, but the 49ers have a great rushing attack, and the Chiefs aren't a great run defense, even if they were better than expected against San Francisco.

Shanahan has run on third-and-long before, with Raheem Mostert's third-and-8 trap against the Packers in the 2019 NFC Championship Game as a famous example, but if he wasn't thinking about going for it on fourth down, it had an impact on his third-down call. Running the ball on that third-and-4 could have converted on its own. It also could have set up a fourth-and-short that would have tipped the scales toward going for it and potentially converting for a touchdown. The bigger issue with what happened on third down was the pass protection, but if Shanahan was more open toward going for it on fourth-and-short, the 49ers would be a more dynamic offense on third down. Without knowing how things would play out, the 49ers probably would have been better off running on third-and-4, especially given how the Chiefs matched with their personnel.

I think they're second guessing on outcome again... I was discussing this with my son, who is a Chiefs fan. To my recollection, McCaffrey ran for 6 on first down, setting up 2nd and 4 from the 9. He was stopped for no gain on second down and had already been used quite a bit on the drive. They tried something different and third down conversion failed and, just like that, the drive stalled. One play without using Christian? Drives stall. Just like that. The Chiefs could have stalled similarly and opted for a FG and the 3rd possession would have been relevant (like you, I was confused by the earlier comment)...

Shanahan was being conservative by not considering 4th down but some also crucified the Lions for being too aggressive (I think they were). You could argue that a pass was more likely to convert on 3rd and that taking the 3 points and the chance to win with a stop made sense for a good defensive team.

You can be damned if you do or damned if you don't...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I haven't read the vast majority of this thread, but IMO... I really had no problem with Shanahan's decision/explanation in the heat of the moment UNTIL I heard that the Chiefs' plan would have been to go for 2 after a second possession, to prevent a 3rd (advantage SF) possession. I didn't think of that when I was playing things out in my head as things unfolded. For that reason, I think everyone from here on out will choose to take the ball second, instead of trying to get that 3rd possession advantage. Kudos to the Chiefs coaches for thinking of that.

I think the next coach facing this decision will choose to kick because they saw how much crap Shanahan took for receiving

And then that coach will lose on the 3rd possession, and it will switch back.

With the 2nd possession you don’t ever have to let it get to a 3rd possession (sans a few exceptions where penalties leave you in a 4th and 20 still in fg range.

Huh?

I think he means you can play to win rather than tie with the second possession because you know that the other team is going to get the ball in sudden death if you tie.

So if they kick a FG and you have 4th and 5 on the 20 yard line you can choose to go for it rather than kicking the FG to tie. If they score a TD and you score a TD you can choose to go for 2 rather than kicking the XP. Etc.

But some of those calls would invite just as much flack for the coaches making the decisions.

I agree with you that there is a ton of results bias in these kind of things. If he'd chosen to kick and they'd lost on the 3rd possession he'd have taken just as much flack as he's taking now for choosing to receive.

 

[ghostguy123]

Anyone factoring in that all the players probably want the ball first?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Anyone factoring in that all the players probably want the ball first?

Not even remotely