The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I've always thought it was a mistake to kick the ball in overtime. Take the ball. Have confidence that your team can at least move the ball to mid field and even if you have to punt you could back up the other team and try to play a field position game. Most teams kick the ball to start the game because they want the ball first in the 2nd half which could potentially lead to more chances in the 2nd half. Why not give yourself that same advantage in overtime?

NFL Coaches have it all wrong (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-coaches-have-it-all-wrong-when-it-comes-to-overtime-or-why-sean-mcdermott-s-final-big-choice-might-ve-cost-him-his-job/ar-AA1Uwy72?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d245081ec04a4811f024928b6d0ee1b6&ei=30)

In general I would take the ball.  Unless  the wind is blowing endzone to endzone then I am picking my goal

Under the current rules there is a notable advantage to kicking away (especially in the playoffs where ties are not possible), unless the wind is severe.

The team that possesses the ball second gets to play 4-down football, knowing exactly what score they need to avoid the loss.  In addition, if both teams score TDs, the first team basically has to kick an extra point (and are severely disadvantaged if they miss), while the second team gets a choice to end the game without giving the ball back to the opponent (by going for two).

Unfortunately that advantage only lasts for your 1st possession and only if you failed to hold the other team out of the endzone. If you don't allow a TD on your opening possession your advantage is gone and If the game goes past your 1st possession, you are at a disadvantage the rest of the way.

1) The first team never gets that advantage at all.  At no point in OT will the first team ever be allowed to play YOLO 4-down football; they must ALWAYS be concerned with the opponent's next field position.
2) The second team absolutely maintains this advantage if the first team scores a TD.  That's the whole point!  If the first team scores a TD, not only do you know that a FG is useless, but if you also score a TD, you get to choose whether you give the ball back to your opponent, or whether you end the game right now.  Again, the first team never gets this choice.

They get a better one. They get the advantage of having at least as many possessions as you and possibly one more.

That only becomes an "advantage" if they get the ball back... which is not guaranteed!

Another way to understand this is that unless the first team scores a TD AND a successful 2-point conversion, overtime potentially becomes sudden death the moment the SECOND team gets the ball, and (as we all remember) having the first sudden death possession is a major advantage.  This is super obvious when the first team fails to score, as the networks will print "NEXT SCORE WINS" on the scorebug, but even if the first team kicks a FG, the second team receives the ball with a "TD immediately ends the game" win condition.  And even if the first team scores a TD+extra point, the second team receives the ball with a "TD+2PT conversion immediately ends the game" win condition.

The second team has the earliest possible opportunity to win the game... and not only that, but they potentially get to play four-down football to do so.  That's the advantage.

But it's as likely as not getting it back. You still have to make the 4th down if it comes to that. You still have to score the TD if the other team has already scored a TD. You have to go for the 2 point conversion AND get it to win outright otherwise you are guaranteeing the other team an advantage as you just said. By the way the opponent knows all of this too.

Potentially! But that requires that you score a TD AND decide to go for it AND get the 2 point conversion. You still have to have all that happen to win if the team with first possession scored a TD and kicked the XP. If any part of that doesn't happen we are still playing or you lose. Wow, big advantage there KNOWING that you MUST do all of that to win on your possession. That's only after the 1st team with possession has already scored and gotten the XP. Yeah of course after your team has already played defense you now have the advantage KNOWING what must be done to win on your possession, but the overtime didn't start that way. It started by you gifting the opposing team the 1st chance to score. You know that thing that was so likely to happen that we HAD to change the rules to prevent the game from ending that way.

But we DID change the rules, so now the threat of the opponent scoring first isn't scary anymore.

You're approaching this as if the rules haven't changed; as if putting any points on the board first is a big deal, when in fact it's extra intelligence for your opponent.  They get to know how your guaranteed possession turned out before they have the ball.  You don't get the same.

That's ONLY true on the very first possession. If your opponent scores first and it's NOT their first possession the game is over, so it's still scary, just a little less scary then before knowing that you will get at least once chance on offense. But you may still get 1 less chance then your opponent gets.

Not really. Putting points on the board first is still important because once someone puts points on the board then either the game is over if it's not the very first possession or the opponent gets 1 chance to either tie or win the game if it was the first possession. But it's not just about who scores first, it's about how many attempts your offense gets to score. The team that gets possession first will either get the same or more chances to score than the team that kicks off. The team that kicks off will get either the same or fewer attempts on offense, never more. That's the real difference and in my opinion that's a bigger advantage than knowing if you need to outscore your opponent on your first possession because even though you know you still have to go do it which is the hard part.

Let's take this past weekend games for example. 2 games were decided in OT and both times the winning team had the ball first and both times they had the ball twice whereas the losing team only had it once. That's TWICE as many opportunities to score than the losing team. This is a big advantage in my opinion and what makes it worse is that the team that kicked off in both cases could have had this advantage and decided against it simply so they could know if they needed to outscore their opponent on their first possession to win which they didn't. It didn't matter because they both threw interceptions on their first possession anyway and then the opponent scored and won the game with 1 more possession. Their opponent had 2 chances to score and they only got 1 and they lost and the icing on the cake is that was their decision.

In my humble opinion and the opinion of the person that wrote the column above, it was the wrong decision.

Absolutely wrong.  It is about who gets to end the game with a score, not "who has more offensive possessions."
The only thing that makes "getting more offensive attempts" valuable is the prospect of ending the game without giving your opponent another chance!

Given that the first team failed to score in both games and the games both became sudden death the moment the second team got the ball, this is literally like watching two old OT games where the second team won under the old sudden death rules, then concluding that picking which goal to defend was obviously more valuable, so you should always have let the other team have the ball first.

There is zero advantage to "having more offensive possessions" if you don't score on your first possession; there are only downsides.  Your opponent gets the ball, and it's now sudden death.

Put another way:
- If you expect your opponent to score, you are better off going second so you have an opportunity to play four-down football to match them, or beat them without giving the ball back.
- If you expect your opponent not to score, you are STILL better off going second so you get the first sudden-death possession.

Exactly, only AFTER 1 team has had a chance to score is it like the old sudden death rules, that's the whole point. The receiving team gets 1 chance to score THEN the old OT rules apply. Only if you completely ignore the fact that they've already had 1 chance to score is it like the old way of doing it. So having had 2 chances to score and scoring on your 2nd possession is the same as scoring on your 1st possession which was the 2nd possession in the game? Completely disagree with that premise entirely especially considering that both of those teams ultimately won the game and the 2nd team with the ball under the old OT rules didn't win enough to the point where they had to change the rules and under those conditions NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND chose to kickoff, they ALL chose to receive the ball. Obviously it's not the same thing. You can't after the fact say that having a possession and not scoring is the same as not having had that possession at all. 2 chances to score are better than 1 in ALL scenario's.

You kick.  Here's why:

There is an advantage to being able to call plays knowing what you need.  It essentially makes the first team play 3-down ball and you get to play 4-down ball.  The only advantage comes if you tie and the 2nd team possesses the ball again.  However, the only way you let that happen is it you're forced into kicking a FG and it's 3-3.  You would always go for 2 to win the game.  And often, you'd go for it on 4th to not kick the FG anyway.

I think that there are way more scenarios where you're helped and the only way you're hurt is if you have to tie the game with a FG.

For 1 series and only if you are losing. If the 1st team with possession doesn't score you're not in 4-down ball. If the 1st team with possession kicks a FG you are only in 4 down ball if you're out of FG range. You're only in 4 down ball the whole drive if you are down by a TD already and I don't consider it an advantage to be behind by a TD in OT regardless of the circumstances.

All your assumptions are based on there only ever being 2 possessions in OT which just isn't the case. Unless the game is OVER after 2 possessions, you now are at a disadvantage throughout the rest of overtime. So yeah, if you assume that someone will ALWAYS score within the first 2 possessions, then in that scenario it makes sense to kick, but unfortunately you don't know if that's how OT is going to play out. You can't assume that will ALWAYS be the case and make decisions based on that. It's a flawed assumption and it hurt both of the teams that made that assumption this past weekend.

You mean kick

Yes, sorry.  Fixed.

I am considering all of these things, but I would bet that the majority of games end after 2 possessions and I also factor in that you are in control as the offense on the field, because you can forgo the FG and go for the TD on 4th down, should you choose.

You would only kick the FG on 4th and medium+.

So I decided to do some research on this. I looked at all the overtime games for the past 5 years 2020-2025 seasons (99 GAMES). The rules for OT used to be different so if you scored a TD on your 1st possession the game was over. More on that later.

1) 5 games ended in a tie and don't tell us much so I'm going to throw those games out for this analysis.
2) 62 of the 94 games ended in 2 possessions or less so yes the majority are decided in 2 possessions or less, but around 1/3 of the games went beyond 2 possessions.
3) Of the 32 games that went beyond 2 possessions, 26 times the team receiving the kickoff ended up winning which seems to bear out my contention that having extra chances to win the game does indeed make a difference. That's an over 80% win rate for the team receiving first if the game goes more than 2 possessions.
4) 15 of the 94 games ended with the receiving team scoring a TD on their 1st possession and won the game. This would not happen with the new rules, the opposing team would get a chance to tie/win the game now.
5) There have been only 4 games after the rules were changed to allow the kicking team a chance to tie or win the game where the receiving team scored a TD on their 1st possession and of those 4 games the team receiving the ball first won 3 of the 4 games. 3 of the 4 teams did actually score a TD on their possession but only once were they successful on the 2 point conversion to win the game. Curiously no one has chosen to tie the game and continue playing but they've only had that choice 3 times, so it's pretty uncommon. 1 good result and 3 bad is not much to go on, but it still doesn't really indicate an advantage either.
6) There have been 18 games where the team receiving the opening kickoff kicked a FG and the opposing team had a chance to tie or win and of those games the team receiving the kickoff won the game 13 times for around 72% win rate. Again that bears out my contention that scoring first does matter. The team that scores 1st has won most OT games in the last 5 years.
7) Overall, of the 94 games the team receiving the ball 1st won 57 games for just over 60% win rate. If you throw out the ones where the team to possess the ball first scored a TD and won the game outright then that leaves 42 of 79 games where the 1st team to possess the ball won for 53% win rate which is only slightly above 50%, but considering that only 1 of 4 teams has been able to win after being down by 7, it's still better to receive the ball 1st.

To summarize, it's not looking good for choosing to kick the ball in OT even with the new rules. The stats indicate it's closer than I thought, but they still favor getting the ball first. Granted it's a small sample size as far as if you are down by a TD after the 1st possession if you can win the game or not, I'll have to continue to watch for that and see if that changes over time, but you'd have to win more than 50% of the time in that scenario to make me think that it might be worth it to kick first. There is value in knowing what you have to do to win, but having that knowledge and being able to convert that into winning is something completely different.

What does the data say only for the current rules?

I'm sure the sample size is very small, but it seems like you can just cut out all variables and see whether the kicking team or the receiving team wins more, without having to extrapolate what the data might mean from a previous rule set?

Is it only this year?

Not super interested in "old rule" comparisons, as virtually everyone agreed you want the ball first under "TD instantly wins," just as they did under "First score wins."

This misses the point.  It's not about 2pt conversion success rate (what you are effectively measuring here); everyone knows that 2pt conversions are less likely to be successful than kicking extra points, yet they go for two anyway.

You are failing to assign a value to the danger of giving the opponent the ball in a "Next score wins" scenario.  And that's bizarre, because we know from 45 years of sudden death overtimes that giving your opponent the ball in a "Next score wins" scenario is extremely dangerous and undesirable!

The current rules started this season, and the data set is so small that you could hypothetically draw conclusions like "Getting the ball first and failing to score actually gives you a better chance of winning" or "Losing the coin flip gives you the best chance of winning OT."

There's only been 3 OT playoff games that have actually played under the current OT playoff rules.

The first was in 2023 (the year the rule was changed). The Chiefs beat the 49ers 25-22. The 49ers got the ball first and kicked a FG. The Chiefs got the ball and scored a TD to win the game. Note that although the current rules applied to that game, it wouldn't have change the outcome because the previous rules allowed that if the team receiving the opening kick scored on a FG that the opposing team would get a chance to tie or win the game which is what happened. So technically the rule change didn't matter in the outcome of that game, but the current rules did apply to that game.

The 2nd was this past weekend when Broncos beat the Bills 33-30. The Broncos got the ball first and punted. The Bills got the ball and threw an interception and then the Broncos kicked a FG to win the game. Again the rules change didn't actually matter as under the old rules the Broncos would still have won the game.

The 3rd was this past weekend when Rams beat the Bears 20-17. The Rams got the ball first and punted. The Bears got the ball and threw an interception and then the Rams kicked a FG to win the game. Again the rules change didn't actually matter as under the old rules the Rams would still have won the game.

There's only been 4 games where the current non playoff OT rules affected the outcome of the game because those were changed this year to mirror the playoff OT rules as far as scoring a TD on the opening possession of the game. The difference between playoff and non playoff is that the game can end in a tie if the score is tied at the end of 1 quarter.

The first game where the rules change did affect the outcome was this year when the Lions beat the Giants 34-27. The Lions got the ball first and scored a TD. The Giants got the ball back and turned it over on downs to end the game. So even though the rule change did affect the outcome as the Giants did get a chance to score, they didn't. The Lions would have won the game outright under the previous rules.

The 2nd game where the rules change did affect the outcome was this year when the Jags beat the Raiders 30-29. The Jags got the ball first and scored a TD. Under the previous rules the game would have ended, but instead the Raiders got the ball and scored a TD, but the 2 point attempt failed so they lost anyway.

The 3rd game where the rules change did affect the outcome was this year when the Broncos beat the Commanders 27-26. The Broncos got the ball first and scored a TD.  Under the previous rules the game would have ended, but instead the Commanders got the ball and scored a TD, but the 2 point attempt failed so they lost anyway.

The 4th game where the rules change did affect the outcome was this year when the Seahawks beat the Rams 38-37. The Rams got the ball first and scored a TD. Under the previous rules the game would have ended, but the Seahawks then scored and converted the 2 point conversion to win the game. This is the only time when a team was down by a TD in OT ended up winning the game.

What's interesting to note is that even though the rule changes haven't really changed the outcome of many games (no games in the playoffs and only 1 non playoff game), it has made 1 very big difference in that many teams are choosing to kick in OT if they win the coin toss. I don't really have the stats for who won the coin toss in these games, but I'm pretty sure the consensus under the previous rules was to take the ball unless the wind was really a factor in the game as Hoodie said above.

When you say "the only games where the new rules affect the outcome of the game," are you including games where the first team fails to score, then the second team gets the ball and scores on their first possession, ending the game?  Those should definitely count, as that's integral to the decision to kick off: you are guaranteed a possession, and if your opponent fails to score, you get the first possession in sudden death.

All OT games that didn't end in a tie in the last 5 years were included in my stats above.

What I mean when I say the "new rules affected the outcome" is if the rule change that was made applied to the game or not. If the outcome of the game didn't change based on the rule change, in other words if the game would have played out the same under the previous set of rules then the new rules didn't affect the outcome. Those games would have ended the same way under the old rules, that's what I mean.

So to answer your question, yes I'm counting the games where the first team fails to score then the second team gets the ball and scores on their first possession ending the game, what I'm saying is that game result didn't change based on the rule change. Under the previous rules if the first team failed to score and the second team got the ball and scored on their first possession the game ended. That didn't change. Only whether or not the 2nd team got the ball if the first team scored a TD changed. I'll give you a couple examples to enforce what I'm saying.

In 2021 the Bengals beat the Chiefs 27-24 in OT in the playoffs. This was before the rule change. The Chiefs got the ball first in OT and turned the ball over on an interception. The Bengals then kicked a FG to win the game. This is also how the game would have played out under the new rules as well so this game would not have been affected by the rules change.

Also in 2021 the Chiefs beat the Bills 42-36 in OT in the playoffs. This was also before the rule change (in fact it was the previous week to the above game) and in fact this is the game that prompted the rule change. The Chiefs got the ball first and scored a TD to end the game. Under the new rules the Bills would have gotten a chance to tie or win this game so this game would have been affected by the rules change. This is the whole purpose of the rule change, to prevent the game from ending on a TD by the team that received the OT kickoff, but it did nothing to prevent the game from ending with the 2nd possession of the game.

But if the team that won the coin flip elects to kick (and then wins after holding the first team scoreless), that should be counted as a result that's affected by the rule change, since they almost certainly wouldn't have kicked under the old rules.

The major benefit of kicking is in making sure you get the first opportunity at sudden death, but if you're disqualifying games where the first team is held scoreless and the second team ends the game as "unaffected by the rule change," you're sidestepping the entire point I'm making.

I'm not disqualifying ANY games. I'm counting those games in my stats.

I'm merely saying whether the rule changes had a bearing on the outcome of the game. If the game would have ended the same way with the old or new rules then the rule change itself didn't matter.

And just to be clear I don't know who won the coin flip in these games. I couldn't care less. All I know is who received the OT kick and whether that team won the game or not. Whether or not the decision to kick or recieve was affected by the rules change, I have no way of knowing. Maybe they would have made the same decision and maybe not. I don't know. I don't care. That's not the point. The point is whether or not receiving the OT kick is beneficial or not. The stats over the last 5 years of OT games that didn't end in a tie say it is beneficial to receive the kick regardless if you were the team that made that decision.

Ostensibly, the point of this thread is whether to choose to kick or to receive if you win the coin flip.
But now it seems like you're saying that it doesn't matter if you chose, and you're just comparing outcomes?

Instead of tracking who got the ball first and how many possessions each team had, what you should be tracking is what the winner of the coin flip chose, and whether that choice worked.  That's the actual variable this thread is about: the choice.

Well I figured the more data the better. How about we then look at only this year's games which were all played under the new rules.

For this year only there were 15 OT games that did not result in a tie. 13 non playoff games and 2 playoff games.
Out of 15, 9 were won by the team receiving the initial OT kick and 6 were won by the team kicking off. 60% to 40%

3 of those 15 were impacted by the rule changes and they are listed below.

The Jaguars beat the Raiders 30-29. Jags got the ball first and scored a TD. Raiders got the ball and scored a TD and the 2 pt attempt failed.

The Broncos beat the Commanders 27-26. Broncos got the ball first and scored a TD. Commanders got the ball and scored a TD and the 2 pt attempt failed.

The Seahawks beat the Rams 38-37. Rams got the ball first and scored a TD. Seahawks got the ball and scored a TD and the 2 pt attempt was successful.

The first 2 games are part of the 9 where the first team to get the ball won the game.

The last game was a part of the 6 where the 2nd team to possess the ball won the game.

No, it doesn't miss the point. The point is they lost the game when they kicked off. That's the only point of discussion here. If you benefit from kicking off first, then it should show up in the results. If it doesn't then it's not much of a benefit.

I don't know how to assign a value to "danger". All I care about is who wins, the team that kicks off in OT or the team that receives. If the team that receives the opening kick in OT wins more often than the team that kicks then from a purely statistical point of view, that's the better choice in my opinion.

Well for the last 5 years, "Next score wins" hasn't been the rule. What has been the rule prior to this year is if the team that receives the ball to start OT scores a TD on that possession, then that team wins, but if they kick a FG, which has happened a total of 18 times then the opposing team has a chance to tie or win the game. They have in fact won 5 times in that scenario, unfortunately they've lost 13 times, so knowing they had to score a FG or TD to either tie the game or win it outright hasn't helped them much.

Even after the rule change, the team to receive the opening kickoff in OT has won 9 of 15 games, so I'm not quite sure why think it's better to kick off. There's no data that supports that position. All the data supports my position which is that it's better to receive the opening kickoff in OT.

Yes and I'm basing my answer to that question on which team wins more often the team that recieves the ball first in OT or not. The data seems to back that up.

Well it might matter if you get to choose, but that's not what I'm basing my answer on. I'm basing my answer on whether or not kicking or receiving the ball first in OT results in more wins. That's the data that I was going after. I don't have the data about who won the coin toss and I'm not basing my decision on that anyway.

No that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that choosing to kick results in more wins than choosing to recieve, otherwise why would you be choosing that? Ok, prove that. Show me that choosing to kick results in more wins than choosing to recieve. That's not really what I was going after, but I'm willing to look at that data. You don't have to show me that choosing to recieve will result more often in winning, I already believe that, that's the basis of my position. Your position is that choosing to kick results in more wins. Ok, prove it.

I want to correct something that I said earlier in the thread. I missed your 2nd point of this post and you are absolutely correct that your advantage is there if you allow a TD. What I meant to say was that if you don't allow a TD then that advantage is gone because giving up a FG or forcing the other team to punt for example doesn't automatically put you in YOLO 4-down football. If you give up a FG then you are in YOLO 4-down football but only until you get into FG range and then you can attempt to tie the game and keep playing, the choice is up to you. Only if you give up a TD does that put the other team in YOLO 4-down football the entire possession. That's what I meant to say, sorry for the confusion there.

There is one other thing to take into consideration and that is perhaps the teams have not had a chance yet to analyze the results of OT games from this year and have that play into their decision making yet. Perhaps the thinking was that the rule change would benefit the kicking team this year, but since there weren't any results to look at yet because this is the 1st year for that change in non playoff games, they just hadn't really looked at it yet. Perhaps after reviewing the results from this year's game the thinking will change again next year.

There is not enough data to draw an empirical conclusion yet.  You can draw all sorts of conclusions when your sample size is in the teens.

Part of the logic behind this is not simply "What has happened in previous OT games?", but within a larger world of NFL statistics.  For example, we should all be familiar with the recent tactic of going for 2 if you score a TD when down 14 in the 4th quarter.  This strategy is not based on historical success of teams that went for 2 when down by 8 points following a late TD, but instead based on success rates for extra points and 2-point conversions: since extra points aren't automatic, there is value in going for 2 early, so you know what you need if you manage to get another TD.  If you miss the 2PA then you know you'll need a 2PA on a second TD, and if you get the 2PA then you can try to win instead of tie (and if your XP misses, you still don't lose).

The point behind the strategy change is to increase your available knowledge of the situation so you can make a more informed decision.  Going for two on the first TD clarifies what you will need to do sooner, which allows you to plan better.  That's why you want to kick away in OT: it gives you more information so you can make better decisions with your playcalling.