Yeah it's like end of game but with the old old OT rules where a FG wins it, and you know the other team is going to win the toss. Have to go for 2 there.

lol at "no one had a problem." I'd imagine quite a few people did.

le sigh

You lose basically every time you fail???? The other team is scoring a TD and making the PAT basically every time???

People in KC hated it when Mahomes never never touched the ball in OT, but the (Bristol-centric) national sports punditry barely brought it up. The Chiefs even proposed changing the rule after 2018, which the NFL shot down.

Fast forward to the :13 second game, the national media goes bananas screaming that it's not fair that Josh Allen never got to touch the ball, and the rule gets changed.

WE TRIED TO CHANGE THE RULE BEFORE MFERS!

Sorry, shorthand. We are assuming only the universe where the other team scores an answering TD. The times when they fail means our PAT decision was meaningless. Similar to how the analysis on whether to go for 2 after a TD when we were down 14 late should only focus on outcomes when we score another subsequent TD and opp doesn't score again, b/c otherwise it's moot.

So let's play PAT at 100% and 2PC at 50%, which is close enough. If we kick first, we win 50% and lose 50% of those trials where opp answers and goes for 2. So we win 50% of the time.

If we go for 2 first, we succeed half the time. Of those, half the time our opp succeeds as well, and we go into sudden death with the ball. The other half, we lose to their PAT.

So EVEN IF WE WIN SUDDEN DEATH 100% OF THE TIME, that only breaks even with kicking first. Winning any less than 100% in sudden death makes going for 2 first a loser.

Now, there may be crazy outliers where a team has an injured kicker or is for some reason WAY more likely to make a 2PC than their opponent. But the huge majority of the time, going for 2 after the initial TD is just idiotic, just like it would be in college for the team that scores first.

Justin Reid said they practiced and planned on going for 2 if that scenario happened.

ok so people did have a problem with KC not getting the ball. i was probably one of them. the "no one cared" is just annoying and so homerish.

well obviously i agree then

No one cared enough to change the rule. Is that better?

well it's a tad different from what you claimed.

and the Chiefs are going for 2 a million times out of a million if they score the 2nd TD.

"it's not in his DNA." christ.

every single team getting to the Super Bowl would go for 2 after scoring the 2nd TD (because they have a brain) but not Andy Reid who has Mahomes and Kelce because........it's not in his DNA. absolutely amazing.

Analogy for going for 2 is this.

Old OT rules. Team wins toss and chooses to receive. Ref says "hey new rule. kicking team, you have the option to go for 2 right now. You win if you convert, but lose if don't"

Do you accept?

If my QB is Jared Goff, no.

If my QB is one of Josh, Lamar, or Mahomes, yes.

Everybody else is somewhere in between.

Seriously.

They might go for 2 even if the game didn't become sudden death after and instead was each team gets another possession.

I like how we’re saying Kyle was lying about knowing the rules but taking Reid at his word that they’re going for 2 if they had to

Based on how reid called that game in any situation with a modicum of leverage i feel very confident calling bull****ingshit that they go for 2

Yup. I definitely don't believe they go for 2 automatically considering past history with Reid and KC's defense actually being good.

Justin Reid said that they had talked in pregame meetings that the O would go for two in that situation.

Again, numbers are so lopsided in favor of going for 2, I can't believe there's a single playoff team that didn't come up with that. That's not one of those 4th down calls that swing the winning percentage by a couple percentage points. Not going for 2 there might be as bad as not going for 2 when trailing by 8 (pre TD) midway through the 4th quarter.

Yeah it sounds like I was wrong on that at least according to the team. Reid generally is on the conservative side and I hadn't really thought through that it's a slam dunk to go for it there when a FG vs. a gassed defense wins it for SF.

You don't have to be so angry about it though.

Apologies for being angry. None of it matters anyway. Congrats.

He said somewhere he would go for 2.

Any chance the NFL just says **** it and changes the playoff OT rules to just playing out a full 15:00 period, and then if still tied, the 2nd OT is a direct continuation (switch sides and team keeps ball where they left off) but it's now sudden death?

I wonder how that changes the calculus on taking the ball first. I'm not sure how many OT periods would play out like this one did, where both teams killed a lot of clock and there was basically just enough time for one possession each, but if that's the norm, taking it 2nd sounds about right.

Also the auto going for 2 in a TD-TD situation would become very time-dependent, doing it with <30s left would be basically the same as with current rules, but doing it with more time left just makes your opponent play optimally if they know they need a FG before the period ends; with say, 1:30 or so left, it might be better to kick the XP and hope your opponent goes with that sort of in-between semi-risk-averse play calling. Of course the problem with this is that in OT2 they can continue to leisurely drive for a FG and you're still toast.

Even if we use league average numbers the decision is super obvious.

Going for the PAT:
95% chance to hit (5% you lose immediately)
37.4% opponent scores on the next drive (so 62.6% they don't score)
37.4% you score after opponent didn't score

So close to 60% of the time you get the ball back and 22% of the time you win it on your ensuing possession.

Compared to 47.5% where you win it by going for two.

Now the real percentage that your opponent doesn't score on their next possession is way lower than 62.6% because defenses are tired. At that point all of the last 7 possessions ended in a score.

Also with those two kickers, starting from your own 25 you need to advance the ball only 40 yards to the other 35 for a high percentage FG attempt.

When Kyle Shanahan says that he elected to receive the OT kick in order to get the ball on the 3rd possession, that's a fair point considering KC didn't score a TD all game except for the short field on the muffed punt. (they also got to the 11 when they had to kick at the end of regulation). That also supports the decision to kick the FG in OT because there's a good chance KC has to settle for a FG, too. I highly doubt he thought he would get the ball back on a TD -TD sequence. Otherwise nobody over there did any OT preparations.

I came up with what I think is a much better way to do OT in the NFL. It's similar to College but I think this is much more exciting and fair to both teams.

Rules:

#1 - No kicking ****ing FGs or Extra Points! (Nobody wants the game to end because your idiot kicker shanked an extra point)

#2 - Coin Toss to determine who goes first. (This won't be that important in this system, but maybe a very slight edge to who goes first)

#3 - The first team gets the ball at the 10-yard line. It's 1st & goal. Normal rules apply. You have 4 downs to score. (NO KICKING A FUXKING FG!!)

#4 - The other team then gets the ball at the 10-yard line, etc

#5 - If only one team scores a TD they win.

#6 - If neither team scores a TD then repeat from the 10 in team reverse order.

#7 - If both teams score a TD, then move the ball back to the 20 and it's 1st & 10.

#8 - Rinse and repeat. If neither team scores then keep the ball at the previous yard mark. If both score then move back 10 yards. If one scores they win.


This is fair for both teams. Both teams always have 4 downs until they score. Who goes first or second is pretty even and there is little to no advantage going first or second. No team is going to lose because their idiot kicker shanked a 20-yard FG or because one kicker can make a 62-yard FG. This is football, not euroball. You have to score a TD to win.

You can also just trade throws with the LoS at midfield. If your QB doesn't have the arm to throw it for 60+ you don't deserve to win a SB. To make it even more interesting, turnover ends the game immediately to discourage laterals.

It's not terrible but I think the less the final product resembles regular football, the less the NFL would be willing to try it. Like I already kinda hate the college OT rules with the recurring 2PC after two OT possessions, which gives it more of the feel of soccer penalty kicks than anything.

Among other things, if the defenses are exhausted, you might wind up with final scores of like 58-52 which would feel like kind of a mockery.

Also, the longer it goes, the more injury potential etc. I think you would have a lot games going 5-10 OT periods.

awful. might as well have a free throw contest to end nba games.