then you would be mocked for eternity. Deservedly.
It's good that there are potential pros and cons to either decision. That's sports (and life). You could draw a 5 after splitting your 8s, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision that gives you the best chance to win.
It would seem going second gives the advantage of "knowing what you need", but going second in the NFL means if you match each other, the other team now gets first possession in sudden death. (Basically what Shanahan said.)
Most folks are assuming a TD by the first team. If that is known, then yes going second is smart. But if we assume the first team gets a FG, then the second team will likely kick to tie vs a 4th down (when in range) in their possession. So you would definitely rather be first if you knew FGs would be exchanged.
It seems there are a fair number of interesting permutations.
They found out.
the mistake was running zone right on 2nd down and 5 from the 7.
Run behind your best players. Stop trying to fool people.
Actually, the bigger mistake was calling a pass on 3rd and 5 from the 35 with 2 minutes to go in the game. Even if a run had been stopped short, it would have forced KC to burn a timeout. And if the run had gotten 3 or 4 yards, it would have set up an opportunity to go for it. The incomplete pass was a killer there, but it was a really good call by KC.
on a drive that important.
If he does, you know you have to score one as well. If he doesn't, great--you can adjust accordingly.
Has a college coach ever decided to take the ball first in OT?
I don't think an NFL coach--for any reason--will ever take the ball first in OT again (at least under the playoff OT rules).
They scored one touchdown all game on a one play, 16 yard drive following a turnover. Those other Super Bowl drives can't reasonably be discounted as insufficiently important for Mahomes to channel his magical powers.
I'm pretty indifferent about the decision. But that's not a sound rationale to attack it.
it would have been a safe assumption if the Niners had decided to kick.
Obviously I agree with you; I have little to no confidence in Steve Wilks, and the defense was gassed, so I thought at the time the best bet was to take the ball and try and go on a drive and get the defense some rest and let Wilks try and figure it out. Alas, he couldn't. That drive to end regulation was an awful series for him. He just can't fucking help himself on third down, has to go for the blitz, man to man. Lucky that Kelce didn't score there.
if the start of the third possession became sudden death.
The only way to even it out is if the 1st team scores a TD and has a successful 2 pt conversion. Otherwise, strategy dictates if team 1 scores a FG, team 2 most score a TD, or they will be giving the ball back to team 1. If team 1 scores a TD, team 2 most score a TD and convert a 2 point play, or they will give the ball back to team 1.
The underlying analysis though requires a little bit of work.
The advantage of going second is basically some mathematical representation of the advantage of knowing what you need to score. The bulk of the advantage only applies when the other team scores a TD and then you are given some small number of additional downs at your disposal (let's call it 2-3 fourth downs on average on a drive that needs to go that length) to allow you to score the TD to avoid a loss. Then there's also the advantage of knowing when you can call conservatively because a FG will win or at least tie. A 2007 study of college football showed no advantage in the first five years of OT (49.4 winning %) and a notable advantage for the next six (62.5 %). Not sure the latest. But assuming it's more common to play for OT I'd guess there's like a 10 percent advantage in college OT by going second.
I'm not sure the degree of the college advantage is directly transferable here. I'd guess the NFL advantage is more muted than college. Because you might convert on fourth in the NFL and still be 60 yards away from scoring and ultimately fail at a greater rate than if you converted on fourth down in college and are now only 15 yards away from scoring. In other words, it's more likely that even after you take advantage of the extra downs, you still fail. Also, the college stats presume that after a tie in 1st OT you still get an opportunity in the second OT even if you give up a score. That's not the case in the NFL.
On the other hand, there's a particular advantage that's easy to see of going first by getting the first sudden death opportunity in the event of a tie after two possessions. Standing alone, the sudden-death advantage was something like a 10-percent win increase (60 percent of receiving teams in old-school NFL rules won--though that advantage may have increased over time as offenses and kickers got better and longer). But that advantage only applies when both teams are tied after two possessions, so you have to calculate those odds.
Off hand, it would be silly of me to draw a strong opinion without better data.
would you go for the tie or go for the conversion and try and count on your defense to get a stop to get you the ball back?
Everyone has a plan with hindsight and "assuming you get a touchdown." How about that scenario?
The answer is, "it depends." Which is why in these particular scenarios with these variety of factors there's no one for sure method, as much as we'd love there to be one.
I mean, what if those refs had actually called a hold yesterday on the Chiefs? What if there was a 4th and forever in field goal range? Nobody likes to think of that, because we all know what happened.
Coach Prime did this past season and admitted he did not know the overtime rules.
of anyone doing it. And when I heard, I too was not surprised. In fact, he did it twice and lost the 2nd time. I assume he won't be doing it again.
will eat at Shanahan. With his play calling skills and the number of weapons he has not getting a TD there really has to sting. I get what you're saying about the 3rd and 5 in regulation but I don't think Shanahan really wanted to be faced with a decision of what to do if it resulted in 4th and 2 or 3.
If SF had scored a TD first, would Reid have gone for 2 to decide the game, knowing that SF would get the ball back with a chance to win. I think the odds would have favored that as the smart play.
in the week leading up to the game. He said they would go for 2 in that situation and had discussed that exact scenario.
first.
But hey, we all know the results now so it's clear what should have been done all along.
And San Fran had a flawed plan and even worse it was not communicated to the players many of who admittedly had no idea what the rules were and what the plan would be. The organization and this staff look like idiots particularly after the player quotes. The Super Bowl was on the line. The entire scenario is embarrassing for San Francisco. This is a team that knows they’ll be in the playoffs by Thanksgiving and knows they will have a chance to win the Super Bowl. For them to not be adequately prepared for this is unbelievable.
Giving the opponent the extra down by going second particularly that QB is egregiously bad. “We wanted to get the ball 3rd”. That is laughable. And if that is your thinking then why are you even kicking the field goal. Go for it on 4th and goal then.
about 45-50 yards to get into FG range without having that benefit of knowing they were going for it every fourth down. So in that scenario there would have been a very real chance to get to that third overtime possession that you keep discounting the possibility of.
it makes almost no difference, and the receiving team actually has the advantage.
And you didn't answer my question--they were down 3/4 of their starting secondary at that time. Should we completely ignore game situation?
Analytic bullshit. Backseat driving. Second guessing.
A gassed defense gets a series off even a nice drive in OT? Will it make that much difference? What if SF goes 3 and out? I mean come on. Your offense had struggled of late in the game. Why is it any better to put them out there? I’d rather give them the chance to know exactly what they need and how many downs they have to do it. And once again you keep discounting that Shanahan admitted this decision was made before he had injuries and before he saw game flow. So to him it didn’t matter so why should I take it into account?
which was likely about 15-20 minutes given commercials, clock stoppages, etc. would indicate that yes, they were more rested. Further evidence would be that they all came back to play.
The offense scored 10 points in the fourth quarter on several long drives. They weren't "struggling" at that point. You're just making things up now to try and support hindsight.
They were 3/12 on 3rd down. I think they had 5 possessions in the 2nd half if you don’t count the last 20 seconds. 3 of those possessions were immediate 3 and outs in which they had -1,-1, and 0 yards.. One was a 75 yard drive and one was a 7 play 40 yard drive for a FG. They had about 120 yards in the second half before overtime. They had one long drive not several. I think it’s you who are misremembering or making things up.
the last two drives were the immediate drives before overtime. 115 yards in the last 2 possessions (late in the game, per your initial comment) and 10 points. I think that's pretty good. You seem to infer that is struggling "late in the game."
I guess you just have higher expectations of the offense than me if you think 115 yards in two possessions prior to that point is struggling.
But I'm sure that you feel Reid would have gone for it on 4th and very long in field goal range in overtime, right? Of course, we'll never know because the defense and the defensive calls stunk.
And on multiple 3rd downs weren’t prepared for what everyone in the world knew would be all out pressure from Spagnola. And they only scored 9 points btw. I haven’t heard a single analysis by anyone of notoriety that didn’t call taking the ball a mistake at a minimum. Most scorched him. So ya, you’re in the overwhelming minority on this one pal.
That is not a correct statement.
Of the two units, it is not arguable as to which was stronger at that point. And assuming a td by a unit that had scored one (off of a sudden change, mind you) isn't a given if the defense is rested.
You guys are using the benefit of hindsight, and I note that you have never answered as to your opinion of what Reid would have done 4th and 15 from field goal range. If your theory would hold, you'd have to assume that he would have gone for it. But, of course he wouldn't have; nobody sane would. He would have kicked and trusted his defense, and Kyle's theory would have been correct. But we won't know, because the defense didn't get a stop. It's the more poorly coached and prepared of the two units.
The defensive scheme and coaching and the offensive line pass protection coupled with turnovers, questionable clock managemtn and poor special teams led to the loss. It's as old an explanation as the game itself. Yes, that's on the head coach, and I expect significant improvement. Getting lost in the minutia of the overtime decision is sportz talk nonsense. It was a 50-50 shot, and to focus on that ignores the other problems, which are much, much, much more likely to have an impact on futures games and schedules.
You are assuming that SF would go on an extended drive the opening series to give this "gassed" defense a rest and then assuming again that whatever rest they got would be enough to hold the Chiefs to exactly the same production SF got out of their drive.
You're correct that the other things all certainly contributed to the loss, but the fact is they were tied at the end of regulation with a chance to win the game and he bungled the decision.
I also disagree with you slamming their defense as much as you are. They held KC to 19 points in regulation, forced 2 turnovers, and were put in an awful spot by the special teams misfortune. As you have noted they were banged up in the secondary and lost Greenlaw early and his replacement was absolutely torched in coverage. I can't hammer Wilkes too much, I thought the defense played well enough to win. The offense had ample opportunity to end the game with a Moody FG try and they failed to convert a first down. SF also got no help up front from the Bill Winovich led crew.
There were at least 3 holds on key plays for KC not called that were apparent. KC was called for holding the most times in the regular season yet managed to play a "clean" game in that regard. The D gets a pass from me. Shanahan and the offense lost the game for SF.
in field goal range question about Reid and whether he would have gone for it. I've posed that to quite a few people with no response to this point. I've heard several NFL analysts (including Brian Baldinger) say that they understand and at least partially agree with Kyle's thinking, and today John Lynch confirmed that the defense's late play (or lack thereof) went into the decision making process as well (I mean, of course it did; they were down 3 starting db's at the time). But hey, Mike Florio and Shannon Sharpe disagree (and probably other dumbfucks like Skip Bayless), and they shout louder than everyone else, so they must be right.
Nobody wants to answer that question because the hypothetical destroys the idea that Shanahan is a dumbass. As Kyle Jusczyk said today, "it's just another way to shit on Kyle." It's dumb, it's pointless, it's sportztalk bullshit.
They blew the game in a variety of ways, mostly OL performance and fumbles. If the defense had held them to a field goal attempt in OT, they would have had a huge advantage. If Mahomes had gotten the ball in a second possession, they would have been at a huge disadvantage. I can see both sides, and given the game circumstances I completely agree with the decision, whereas I completely disagree with other decisions.
You can put whatever spin you want on it about a tired defense it’s still stupid particularly since that played no part in the on field staff decision. None. John Lynch isn’t talking to anyone during the game. If he said that it’s nothing more than a foolish attempt to defend a dipshit decision by his coach. That will be the one and only time you ever see that mistake again in this spot.
The 4th and 15 question is totally irrelevant. Again you are trying to predict a scenario that is unknown. What is known is that no matter what both teams get a chance to possess the ball. All things equal you absolutely want to go second in this scenario. Making it even more egregious of an error is knowing the QB you are facing is the best in football and has an unheard of success rate of winning games on a final possession. Furthermore you know if they do score there’s about a 99% chance they will put the ball in his hands from the 2 to win the game rather than put their defense out there to try to keep you from getting into FG range.
the point is that on fourth down in field goal range, Reid would have gone for the kick. And assuming a make, the Niners would have got the ball in sudden death, next score wins.
Again, this is all nonsense sportztalk bullshit. The numbers have been run; it's basically a coin flip, and with a tired defense missing 4 starters (just from this game, 5 if you want to count Hufanga) that had given up 70 yards in less than 2 minutes just prior, it's not some idiotic or horrific call.
The defense has to do it's job at some point. In your world, they would have been better off kicking off and then just taking a knee while the Chiefs ran a play to let them score and then get the ball back to try and get a td and a 2 point conversion. Meanwhile, they had gone through the entire game and the defense (when it wasn't exhausted) had held them to 4 field goals.
So, in other words, a question about holding them to another field goal (after they'd already forced 4) isn't irrelevant. It's actually on point. Now, for your next task, stop dealing in hindsight.
They were better for a few plays after getting a breather but then Mahomes wore them down again.
You could say KC would have had to punt on 4th down if they had gone first, but I don’t think SF would have held them to 4th down coming right back onto the field. And I think KC would have gone for the half yard and gotten it anyway.
they needed the break to get them back in.
I think that makes taking the ball first or second a tougher call than a college overtime decision.
If KC had kicked a field goal to tie, the next score would have won the game and San Francisco would have had the ball. A team winning the toss but choosing to play defense would be guaranteed to never have more possessions than its opponent.
I think that the defense being gassed plays into it as well.
Which I believe both Reid and Shanahan would have done if they scored second. Taking the ball first was not smart. Shanahan brought up analytics and a “third possession”. Well analytics would have told him to go for 2 and the win. Shanahan has killed his teams in the Super Bowl 3 times as a play caller now. I hope he can get another chance soon but you just never know.
Knowing exactly what you need and how many downs to use on the one guaranteed possession you will get is far better than banking on getting a second possession.
on the field, and they were clearly in need of a break. It didnt work out because they still couldn't stop them, but I was fine with Shanny's call.
He said that before the game his analytics department determined they would take the ball in OT. It doesn’t make any sense particularly given the opponent having the QB they do. To the contrary Chris Jones stated KC had discussed OT rules for two weeks and that they would not take the ball and that they would absolutely go for 2 if they scored a touchdown second to match SF.
The defense being gassed is also irrelevant given the rules. If you give up a TD oh well. You now know you have 4 downs each series, need a TD and can go for 2 and the win if you score so your defense never has to play another down win or lose. I cannot fathom how the logic is “we might get the ball a second time and then all we need is a field goal.” It’s nonsense.
right? I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking "if our gassed D gives up a TD then oh well we still get the ball back and can go for two after we inevitably score a touchdown". It's a close call with reasonable arguments on both sides. I have no doubt if he went on defense and it went KC FG, SF FG, KC game winning FG he would be getting killed by some people for that. Especially in a game that already had six field goals during regulation.
That is ridiculous. I am perplexed by the defense of this decision by some of the intelligent people here with sports acumen. It is not a close call. It makes no sense analytically or from a simple sideline game management standpoint. With many on his team admitting they were not aware of the overtime rules I am less than certain his analytics staff and he even understood them.
You do realize he admitted this decision was made before the game right? So his defense, his 2 scores in 10 possessions according to him did not have anything to do with the decision. They planned to go on offense first if the game went to overtime according to him. It was moronic.
not have killed him but if the scenario I put out happened he would absolutely be facing criticism from some. That doesn't mean his decision was correct but to act as though there's no justification for taking the ball and it was an epically dumb decision I think is unfair.
down when the Chiefs were in field goal range, would Reid have gone for it or would he have tied it up? That's another point people seem to be glossing over. Maybe he would have gone for it; probably would have depended on distance. If it was 3rd and 8 +, I doubt he would have. If he chose to kick at that point and it was successful, now the Niners have the advantage again where one score would have won in sudden death.
Again, we don't know because the defense couldn't do it, for a variety of reasons. That's what the Niners should be examining--why couldn't they get a stop? Yeah, Mahomes is good, but they've got talent on that defense as well, even without Greenlaw.
in a real high pressure spot during that drive. Since KC doesn't have a play caller who thinks shot gun/run the QB into the line is a good idea with the season on the line they were able to get themselves out of that with ease.
Shanahan should have accounted for that in regulation, which is why I hated the second and third down play calls on both sides of the two minute warning. I definitely felt that he should have run on both of those plays. At a minimum, he would have forced the Chiefs to call a timeout.
But hindsight is 20-20. And Steve Wilks is fucking terrible.
that basically say it's a toss up and yet you claim the opposite in your post.
And I completely disagree with the game management argument. They were down 3/4 of their starting secondary at that point and those guys needed time to get worked on to be ready to play. You would prefer to go with backups at that point? Against one of the best qb's and one of the best playcallers ever?
I suppose that I disagree.
We know this and most believe he is a really good coach too. The decision he made was poor and no coach will make that decision again in that situation. There are a litany of coaches you would be killing for that decision not named Shanahan.
I didn't like his play calling at times, especially late in regulation, and I've said so.
This argument is just more silly analytics bullshit. I wouldn't "kill" any coach for that decision, especially given the game situation and his defensive coordinator vs their play caller and head coach.
The criticism lies with the play calls at the beginning of the third quarter, after the two minute warning, the decision to hire Steve Wilks, and the playcalling on second down in the overtime near the goal line. Those are reasonable. I'm not going to second guess a guy for taking the ball when his defense is exhausted, outmanned, and outcoached and has spent a ton of time on the field (and likely should have lost in regulation).
I’m not sure what happens when he gets these leads and not being able to close. I think he’s definitely a top 5 coach in the league. I hesitate to ever rip play calls for a lot of the reasons you always mention, scouting, check with me etc, but there’s no question he has to answer for not closing the deal via sound play calling and clock and game management. They still have a window with this group with the cheap QB. Maybe next year they do it.
especially when the refs have swallowed their whistles are are "allowing guys to play" and the other team has an all time great at qb.
He needs to do a better job with his defense and adjust his scheme, especially to account for mobile qb's. They don't face that as much in the NFC, but the top AFC teams all seem to have mobile guys and they keep getting gashed. He needs to do a better job with his special teams; they have struggled with simply catching the ball on kicks for several years now. If those things don't improve, they're not going to win shit, especially vs a team like the chiefs.
not getting the td is the error. Not draining more time/forcing KC to use more timeouts in the fourth quarter is another error. Wilks not being as good as Reid is the fatal error.