Why Are Teams Deferring In O.T. This Season?

[kdslittlebro]

I understand what some of you are saying, and it would make sense if the third possession wasn't sudden death.


Scenario:

-Team A defers.
-Team B scores a TD on the first possession.
-Team A scores a TD on their first possession.
-Team B now gets the ball back with sudden death rules.

Obviously, there are the x factors of a team going for two, but I would much rather receive the ball with the new rules. I believe there is much more downside of getting the ball second than first with these rules.

So you think the 49ers made the right decision in the SB?

Nvm you explained already

 

[Stop_It_5]

I understand what some of you are saying, and it would make sense if the third possession wasn't sudden death.


Scenario:

-Team A defers.
-Team B scores a TD on the first possession.
-Team A scores a TD on their first possession.
-Team B now gets the ball back with sudden death rules.

Obviously, there are the x factors of a team going for two, but I would much rather receive the ball with the new rules. I believe there is much more downside of getting the ball second than first with these rules.

The only way a third possession happens in this scenario is if Team B goes for 2 and gets it. Otherwise they're gonna kick their EP and play defense, Team A is going for 2 and the win if they score a TD. No one in Team As shoes would trade extra points and accept never getting the ball back.

 

[BucciMane]

you are too fixated on one specific scenario and ignoring all others that have statistically a lot more probability of happening

I don't think saying one team scores, then the opponent scores, and then the first team getting the ball back is just focusing on one specific scenario. We see teams score on back to back possessions all the time.

 

[BucciMane]

The only way a third possession happens in this scenario is if Team B goes for 2 and gets it. Otherwise they're gonna kick their EP and play defense, Team A is going for 2 and the win if they score a TD. No one in Team As shoes would trade extra points and accept never getting the ball back.

And, I can see that point of view. With that being said, I believe that's even more reason to wanting to get the ball first. You don't put yourself in a position to feel like you need to go for two.

 

[yseJ]

I don't think saying one team scores, then the opponent scores, and then the first team getting the ball back is just focusing on one specific scenario. We see teams score on back to back possessions all the time.

once again youre not thinking in terms of probabilities, but you should be

scoring a TD is inherently more difficult than kicking a field goal, especially in todays league with kickoff rules and juiced kballs

the probability of both teams scoring like youve said is lower than probability of that not happening.

having an extra down to work with knowing exactly what you need is a huge advantage

 

[CHICAGO]

@BucciMane WHEN THE WHOLE COLI
AND NFL UNANIMOUSLY AGREE
ITS TIME TO STICK A FORK IN IT



​

 

[BucciMane]

@BucciMane WHEN THE WHOLE COLI
AND NFL UNANIMOUSLY AGREE
ITS TIME TO STICK A FORK IN IT



​

There have only been three O.T. games this year. I am interested in seeing if teams change their mindset as the year goes on. I get the logic of deferring, but I believe there is more risk doing that than receiving first.

 

[concise]

Both teams get a chance to possess the ball, and then the rest of the game is played until the ten minute period expires with it being sudden death.

I understand what some of you are saying, and it would make sense if the third possession wasn't sudden death.

Regular season OT is only 10 minutes.

If both teams score, it's highly unlikely there'll be a lot of time left.

 

[Trojan 24]

Regular season OT is only 10 minutes.

If both teams score, it's highly unlikely there'll be a lot of time left.

This right here, you get the ball back knowing what you need and also knowing time likely isn't on the other teams side if they get another possession.

If the other team scored, you also pretty much playing with 4 downs to match. That's a game changer

 

[BucciMane]

Regular season OT is only 10 minutes.

If both teams score, it's highly unlikely there'll be a lot of time left.

Instead of saying both teams score, let's say both teams go three and out. There would still be plenty of time left for a score.

I get the entire mindset of knowing what you need if you defer. I just think there's more downside to that option. Not a hill I'm going to die on like I will when telling people Burrow is overrated, Mike Evans should not be inducted to the HOF, and many other great opinions, but I just think receiving first with the way O.T. is set up makes more sense.

 

[broller]

Instead of saying both teams score, let's say both teams go three and out. There would still be plenty of time left for a score.

I get the entire mindset of knowing what you need if you defer. I just think there's more downside to that option. Not a hill I'm going to die on like I will when telling people Burrow is overrated, Mike Evans should not be inducted to the HOF, and many other great opinions, but I just think receiving first with the way O.T. is set up makes more sense.

The way kickers can kick from far distances and the new kickoff rules, both teams not scoring might have a lower probability than in the past.

 

[RubioTheCruel]

It’s a pretty simple answer. You can’t win the game if you possess the ball first in OT - you can lose however.