screwed up the OT loss coin toss choice.

Given the flow of the game which wasn't going particularly well for the SF offense, the smarter move would have been to receive and know exactly what they had to do on offense and be able to use 4th downs if needed.

I'd speculate that he didn't know the rules but will never say it. I'm sure he'll provide a logical rationale.

possessions.

Would you care to explain exactly how the flow of the game "wasn't going particularly well" for the offense at that point? And if you wouldn't mind also comparing and contrasting to the "flow of the game" for the defense at that point, that would be fantastic.

Your speculation about him not knowing the rules is incorrect; they have an analytics guy and everything, and it was hashed out before the Super Bowl. But because you know the end result in hindsight, you can point out how dumb someone else is. Because if you'd been faced with fourth and long in field goal range down by 3 points, you would have known to go for it and convert, because reasons.

you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

But if you state claims that are easily disprovable, I am certainly entitled to call you on that. The offense had not been struggling, the defense had.

Can an argument be made that they should have kicked? Sure. But it's not some slam dunk decision that is a given like college OT. At some point the defense had to make a play. They did not. Just like 4 years ago. It happens. But this isn't Brian Kelly calling a pass play/option when all he needs is a field goal to win and he has the best field goal kicker in the country and he's well within his range.

Meanwhile Reid's group were practicing the new rules.

Nice preparation by Big Game Kyle, his staff and the band of celebrating hotshots like Kittle. I'm thrilled for the 49er fans.

have impacted anything that happened. If anything if any defender thought they were gonna win when the first overtime quarter reached zero if KC didn't score it would have made them more inclined to be expecting pass on the last play.

and that's part of the reason the NFL went with this system, to ensure that it was the "most fair."

The team that receives first has the advantage/statistical probability of winning.

There's no empirical evidence on it since it was the first time these rules were ever used.

I would assume that's modeling, yes.

valid.

But, I’m old enough to remember the exact same things being said about Tom Landry until they weren’t.

Dallas lost in the playoffs every year from 1966-1970 until winning SB VI.

That included 2 NFL championship games against Green Bay, 2 Divisional games against Cleveland and SB V against Baltimore. Benching Craig Morton for Roger Staubach was the catalyst.

You have to win a lot of games just to get there and most of the NFL would love to have SF’s record.

and until they were again.

from 1999 to 2019

until he wasn't. Exhibit A (among many) is the endgame of the Eagles first Super Bowl against the Patriots, when he burned clock with a methodical drive to pull within one score. There are many worse examples with the Eagles in less high-profile games.

Did he lose 3 ten point or more leads in those games as the primary offensive play caller like Kyle Shanahan has now done in 3 Super Bowls?

I love what SF does offensively with pre snap movement and use of personnel. Their run game is great to watch with the blocking variations they use and when they are clicking there isn't much you can do to stop them. Shanahan deserves most of the credit for that along with Lynch for the pieces he has assembled. With all that said Shanahan is now in Lamar Jackson territory for me. Until I see him close the deal, I won't believe he can. He should have a couple of Super Bowl rings and he doesn't with significant reasoning being his own decision making.

There is no denying that.

the play calling, or as jt pointed out, the at the line calls from the choices Purdy was given sure made it seem like that's what they were going for. The line was not holding up well to KC's pass rush but just keep trying to pass on first down.

for how well one should perform in later possessions. There's a lot of noise and chance. Sometimes one will score early and not late, sometimes late and not early.

It's obviously an advantage to have an early lead because if you score at your average rate in the second half, you should maintain that lead. But when there's only a handful of possessions, otherwise statistically insignificant deviations for a single game end up determining the outcome.

But whether there was an early lead isn't really the point. The point is total points. 19 regulation points looks pretty average for what the Chiefs gave up all year, though they dominated on defense in the two playoff games. Same for the 20 points scored in 2020. It was not impressive in light of the overall 2019-20 Chief results, but it was quite good when looking at the Chiefs last five games (including playoffs).

On the other hand, 28 points against the Pats in 2017 was like the third most the Pats gave up all year. Sometimes scores come early, sometimes late. I'm not inclined to read more into it than that. Though I welcome a deeper look, as some have, into play breakdowns. Certainly three straight 3-and-outs can be looked differently than sustained drives that just didn't hit a key third down conversion.

Not good, Bob