Major difference here though because a failed onsides more or less puts the other team in field goal range to begin with (slight exaggeration but you get my point).
Wild Card Weekend game thread
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
Because the odds of recovering an onside kick is like 3%, which means the odds you give the other team the ball on your own 40=43 yard line is 97%. That would be free field position in a do or die situation.
A coach would rather hope for a lucky bounce on defense for a turnover than hope for an onside recovery.
You'd have to believe that the odds of recovering an onsides kick is greater than the odds of stopping the other offense from scoring on a 75-ish yard drive. I think the odds of recovering are around 9%, although I suppose that represents onsides kicks where the other team is expecting it. Still, I can't imagine from an analytical standpoint that the odds of recovery are greater than the odds of stopping the other offense from a traditional spot after kickoff.
The odds of recovering an expected onside kick are 3%, which wouldn't really be the case here.
But we have to contrast the odds of recovering an unexpected onside kick against the rise in TD scoring odds from starting at the opponent 43 instead or your own 25. That's where I think game context comes into play. If the Falcons had won the toss under this rule set in Super Bowl LI and scored a TD, I think their odds of stopping the Pats offense on a 75 yard drive or a 45 yard drive weren't all that different to be honest.
That's fair. Decision making has certainly changed a ton in a short period of time so yeah I guess we could see something like that happening. Maybe one of the wicked smart stat type people here could lay out the odds of that as well as the odds of going for two on an opening OT TD drive. Interesting stuff...
A lot of interesting possibilities and all we can be certain of is the rule will change again in 5 years when one media darling gets bounced under the current setup and everyone deems it to be unfair.
Game theory says no
If you go for it and miss, other team can just kick and win. If you make it, other team can still tie.
Plus the 4 downs for 2nd possession, instead of 3 on 1st, as T4w astutely points out.
You think they changed the rule because the Bills are a media darling and Patrick Mahomes is not?
They changed the rule because it's ridiculous that a team doesn't touch the ball in OT. I don't think media darlings has anything to do with it. The Patriots won in OT in the SUPER BOWL and Atlanta didn't touch the ball and the Patriots are certainly not darlings.
This sounds like another Strawman. So many strawman being built, outraged about something that hasn't even happened.
Why would we assume the other team wouldn’t go for two after the second possession TD if you kick the XP after the first possession TD?
OK, then, let's get this party started. Just a drizzle right now in the SC Valley. Weather prognosticators were right.
I heard John Elway say about the 1997 Broncos-Chiefs playoff game that it was a good thing the Broncos lost to the Chiefs during a regular season game because it’s hard to win three games in a row against an opponent.
It’s admittedly a widespread fallacy.
It's just something that sounds good. Like when people says the Patriots dominated from 2001 to 2019 because of their division. In fact, there was an asshole who was saying that a few weeks ago on this board.
And then you look at the numbers and it's just an old wive's tale and wrong.
I just remember the Pats sweeping Miami in 1997, including the week 17 finale in Miami for the division crown, then beating the ever living piss out of Marino in the wild card game to wrap up a 3-0 season against them, only giving up 15 points in the final two games combined.
I definitely take the ball first. If the first possession is a match, then you have it first just needing a field goal. Put another way, no matter how many possessions you are always guaranteed to have equal or more than your opponent absent turnover. Or simply — You always want the odd possessions, 1, 3, 5.
I think “knowing what you need” is overrated. If going on fourth down makes sense, it should always make sense. If going for it does not make sense, your opponent is in a suboptimal position. That is always good.
Might they make it? Sure. Just like sometimes 16 wins against a dealer ten showing. You’d still always rather be the dealer in that case before the hand is dealt.
I think “knowing what you need” is overrated. If going on fourth down makes sense, it should always make sense. If going for it does not make sense, your opponent is in a suboptimal position. That is always good.
Might they make it? Sure. Just like sometimes 16 wins against a dealer ten showing. You’d still always rather be the dealer in that case before the hand is dealt.
SF is so loaded with talent on both sides of the ball.
Purdy shitty qb play for them so far but does not seem like it will matter at all.
Purdy shitty qb play for them so far but does not seem like it will matter at all.
Yeah, barely raining though. Bosa needs to slap Purdy around, loosen him up. Or Kittle.
It has been bothering me all year. But actors want to act. Not sure Billions is stretching him the way he wants.
I’m sure it is a big check. Keeps him visible for a super hero villain I guess.
Actors gotta work, and it has to be the easiest job he will get. Plus he’s not exactly raking in RDJ or Cruise money.
Was afraid on those first couple throws. But those last two, including the TD was what Purdy has been doing well. Being patient and poised and finding what’s open. Much better.
Niners are a really fun, uncomplicated and complete team. Would love to see them come out of the NFC at least.