Kick or take the ball in overtime?

[Pappy13]

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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).

[Pappy13]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

Unfortunately that advantage only lasts for your 1st possession and only if you hold the other team out of the endzone. If you allow a TD on the 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.

[Pappy13]

1) The first team never gets that advantage at all.

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

You're approaching this as if the rules haven't changed; as if putting any points on the board first is a big deal...

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.

[Spider-Dan]

But it's not just about who scores first, it's about how many attempts your offense gets to score.

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!

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

You receive.  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.

You mean kick