Kick or take the ball in overtime?

[Pappy13]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xm1D3TfofU

[Pappy13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xm1D3TfofU

First off, in my opinion KC was the better team. Mahomes was the better QB. The fact they won had less to do with the decision to take the ball by the 49'ers and more to do with the fact that KC and Mahomes were just better. If you have the better team and the better QB your chances of winning go up in OT regardless of whether you take the ball or not. In my humble opinion even if the 49'ers would have kicked off, KC would have still moved down the field and scored a TD and they would have ended up winning the game regardless, even if the 49'ers still got a chance to tie or win the game.

Secondly, up to the midway point of his analysis, he still has the team to take the ball with the better chance to win and I completely agree, but then he continues because he's trying to make the point that going 2nd is actually the right call. Why? Why not stop there? Because Andy Reid says so? Because the Chiefs won the game? No, because he's trying to prove his point so he HAS to find a way to do that, but I'm saying he's wrong. I'm saying Andy Reid is wrong. Another pretty good coach disagreed with Andy. Just because his team lost we should ignore him? Nope. Not for me anyway. Basically my thinking goes exactly the way that the analysis in the video goes for about 1/2 through it. Maybe he's right and maybe that analysis doesn't go far enough, but even with all the analysis he does, he fully admits that there's too many variables to really call it one way or the other. Maybe I'm taking the more simplistic approach and maybe he's over analyzing it and he should have stopped half way through the video. I'm not arguing that I know what's right, I'm simply saying it's what I would do. This guy is trying to prove that the 49'ers made the wrong call and the proof is that they lost the game. Well we just saw in 2 OT games this year that logic doesn't always work out and in fact, over the last 5 years, it hasn't really worked in their favor.

It's easy in hindsight to say that was a pivotal decision for that game, but as we saw in the playoffs this year, it's far from being the slam dunk call. Maybe if you have Mahomes it makes sense, but not every team has Mahomes. All things being equal, I'm taking the ball if I win the coin toss.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

First off, in my opinion KC was the better team. Mahomes was the better QB. The fact they won had less to do with the decision to take the ball by the 49'ers and more to do with the fact that KC and Mahomes were just better. If you have the better team and the better QB your chances of winning go up in OT regardless of whether you take the ball or not. In my humble opinion even if the 49'ers would have kicked off, KC would have still moved down the field and scored a TD and they would have ended up winning the game regardless, even if the 49'ers still got a chance to tie or win the game.

If KC had the ball first and scored a TD, then the 49rs would NOT have kicked a FG to lose the game.  They would have gone for it on 4th down and might have gone on to win.

Secondly, up to the midway point of his analysis, he still has the team to take the ball with the better chance to win and I completely agree, but then he continues because he's trying to make the point that going 2nd is actually the right call. Why? Why not stop there? Because Andy Reid says no? Because the Chiefs won the game? No, because he's trying to prove his point so he HAS to find a way to do that, but I'm saying he's wrong. I'm saying Andy Reid is wrong. Another pretty good coach disagreed with Andy. Just because his team lost we should ignore that? Nope. Not for me anyway. Basically my thinking goes exactly the way that the analysis in the video goes for about 1/2 through. Maybe he's right and maybe that analysis doesn't go far enough, but even with all the analysis he does, he fully admits that there's too many variables to really call it one way or the other. Maybe I'm taking the more simplistic approach and maybe he's over analyzing it and he should have stopped half way through the video.

A disingenuous way to view the video.  He was building the model.  He stated with the simplest case and built from there. 

It's easy in hindsight to say that was a pivotal decision for that game,

If you watch his other videos it will see that is not how he rolls. 

All things being equal, I'm taking the ball if I win the coin toss.

You would be making a very small mistake and giving the other team a tiny edge.  However, it is a very tiny edge you are giving up.  Unlike going first under the college rules or going second under the old NFL rules of OT where whoever scored first wins.  I think the real point is that the NFL overtime rules are extremely close to being fair and overtime not being determined by who won the coin toss. 

In general if I was an NFL coach and won the coin toss and was playing indoors or in no a stadium with no wind I would elect to kick as this gives you a slight advantage.  But if there was any wind and even a slight advantage in choose which goal to defend I would choose the side and let the other team get to choose to kick or receive first. 

The other thing to look at is what is the score going into overtime is it 45-45 in a game in which both teams scored on every possession?  Then going second really makes sense.  On the other hand is 3-3?  Then getting the ball first makes more sense. 

[Phishfan]

College isn't who scores first. Both teams get possessions. They start at the 25, no kickoff and no punts. If you turn the ball over the other team starts at the 25. If still tied after two possessions each you must go for 2 after a touchdown. I have always found it an exciting version.

I forgot to add that they alternate who goes first after each round.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

College isn't who scores first. Both teams get possessions.

And for that reason you always want to kick instead of receive in college and the receiving team has a huge advantage.  Under the old NFL rules where whoever scored first won the team that received always had huge advantage.  Under current NFL rules the team that kicks has a very slight advantage, but it is almost fair.  So fair in fact that some people would choose to receive first.     

[Pappy13]

If KC had the ball first and scored a TD, then the 49rs would NOT have kicked a FG to lose the game.  They would have gone for it on 4th down and might have gone on to win.

And they might have failed on 4th down or they may have turned it over on 2nd down, who knows? What's your point? It's not like knowing you will go for it on 4th down somehow makes it easier to convert a 1st down in my opinion. The defense knows you have 4 downs too and yes it's easier to convert a 1st down with 4 downs instead of 3, but it doesn't make it anywhere close to automatic. The defense also knows you have 4 downs to make a 1st down and they very well might play differently (more aggressively) knowing that you have 4 downs to make the 1st down and not just 3. The video made a mistake in that regard by the way as he said the team with the ball 1st doesn't have the advantage of knowing what they have to do to win, actually they do only it's when they are on defense first. In my opinion knowing you will go for it on 4th down doesn't make it any easier to convert it, you simply have another crack at it which is better than not having that crack, but you might just as well turn it over on 2nd down and not even make it to that 4th down. Even if you do, your chances of converting depend more on the distance for the 1st down. 4th and 1 is obviously a lot easier to convert than 4th and 10, but who knows which you will need? There's just too many variables to take every possible scenario into consideration, but what we do know without a doubt is that if the game is tied after the 1st 2 possessions, then the team with the ball first after that point has a clear advantage.

I think the real point is that the NFL overtime rules are extremely close to being fair and overtime not being determined by who won the coin toss.

I'll go one step further and say it is as fair as it can be. Not only is the outcome not reliant on winning the coin toss, it's also not determined by whether you choose to receive or kick and I never suggested otherwise. However knowing that choosing to receive *might* get you an additional entire possession to win the game than your opponent, I'm still of the opinion even after watching the video that the potential for an additional possession over your opponent to win the game has greater value than the potential of perhaps having an extra down. He's thrown in some hypothetical numbers to make it turn out slightly in the favor of the kicking team, but I disgree with how much that changes the odds. I still believe the odds are in favor of the team receiving the ball first.

I'm also quite certain that Andy Reid was relying on the fact that he has Mahomes as his QB and with the game on the line Mahomes would do whatever was needed to win the game. Mahomes can do that. That actually makes more sense to me than anything else.

I will say that one thing in the video that I hadn't thought of before is that if both teams score a TD on their 1st possession, going for 2 by the 2nd team is the better choice because the odds of you winning it with a 2 point conversion are better than your odds of giving your opponent another opportunity to win. I hadn't considered that before, but it's the lesser of 2 evils so not an advantage, just less of a disadvantage.

[Spider-Dan]

And they might have failed on 4th down or they may have turned it over on 2nd down, who knows? What's your point?

We do know that their decision to play it safe and take 3 points resulted in their loss.
If you are in possession of the knowledge that your defense will be unable to stop your opponent from scoring a touchdown, then you know that a field goal won't prevent your loss, and therefore you need to be more aggressive.

But you can only have that knowledge if you get the ball second.