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

[BucciMane]

It makes zero sense to me with the way rules are this year why teams are not electing to receive. 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. Why on earth would you want to defer?

You defer and the opposing team scores. You then answer and tie the game. Now the opposing team possesses the ball again with sudden death rules. Just makes zero sense to me.

 

[VegetasHairline]

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Deferring gets you potentially better field advantage when you get the ball back

 

[Standing on business]

Deferring puts pressure on the opposing team to score their first possession.

 

[who_better_than_me]

Because both teams get a possesion regardless, deferring lets you get the potentially last possesion and lets you know what you need to do to win.


It’s more leverage to receive the ball second

 

[BucciMane]

Because both teams get a possesion regardless, deferring lets you get the potentially last possesion and lets you know what you need to do to win.


It’s more leverage to receive the ball second

Which is why with the way the rules are, I think it makes more sense to want the ball first. Each team gets one possession minimum, but the third possession then goes to the team that received the ball first AND now gets to play for next score wins.

 

[broller]

It makes zero sense to me with the way rules are this year why teams are not electing to receive. 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. Why on earth would you want to defer?

You defer and the opposing team scores. You then answer and tie the game. Now the opposing team possesses the ball again with sudden death rules. Just makes zero sense to me.

It's called going for 2.
It's the same reason why the Chiefs would have deferred in OT to the 9ers. Shanahan made a mistake electing to receive.

As well, it allows to use HAVE to use all 4 downs on your drive. If you receive, you may not use all 4 downs on your drive.

 

[Da_Eggman]

Cuz it gets results you stupid chief

 

[FaTaL]

because you kinda control your destiny

if your d gives up a td you know you're going for it on every 4th down

 

[yseJ]

you ever play poker ? do you know why position matters so much in poker ?

its kinda the same thing here

going 2nd you know what you need on offense and can gameplan accordingly

going 1st you dont know what the opponent will do and you cant just play for a FG like going 2nd would if the oppoising team punts the ball

 

[CHICAGO]

IF YOU DEFER AND GET THE STOP
YOU KNOW ALL YOU NEED
IS A FG TO WIN THE GAME.

IF YOU GET THE BALL FIRST
PRESSURE IS ON TO SCORE A TD


​

 

[Stop_It_5]

When you get the ball second you know exactly what you need and can dictate terms. Whether thats a FG, TD + 1 or TD + 2 to win. That's why everybody killed Shannahan for giving Mahomes that advantage in the Super Bowl.


The only argument against it in the regular season would be that the 10 minutes run out no matter what unlike the playoffs. The team who receives first could hypothetically run out the entire OT and kick a FG as time expires.

 

[BucciMane]

you ever play poker ? do you know why position matters so much in poker ?

its kinda the same thing here

going 2nd you know what you need on offense and can gameplan accordingly

going 1st you dont know what the opponent will do and you cant just play for a FG like going 2nd would if the oppoising team punts the ball

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.

 

[yseJ]

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.

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

 

[BucciMane]

When you get the ball second you know exactly what you need and can dictate terms. Whether thats a FG, TD + 1 or TD + 2 to win. That's why everybody killed Shannahan for giving Mahomes that advantage in the Super Bowl.


The only argument against it in the regular season would be that the 10 minutes run out no matter what unlike the playoffs. The team who receives first could hypothetically run out the entire OT and kick a FG as time expires.

Yes, and that is my point. Those are two entirely different situations and the rule changes make a big difference. This isn't college football O.T. rules.

People can talk about "putting the pressure on the opponent" or "knowing what you need to do to tie or win", but I believe having that third possession with sudden death rules is more important.