Super Bowl 58 Mic'd Up

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

I agree you are stating facts but....

Giving Mahomes the ball with a chance to win the SB with a TD is not factored into those stats. Playoff Mahomes is a totally different beast and have no idea how you can factor in "Playoff Mahomes" into a number or percentage? But, I know I'd put my money on Playoff Mahomes.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree you are stating facts but....

Giving Mahomes the ball with a chance to win the SB with a TD is not factored into those stats. Playoff Mahomes is a totally different beast and have no idea how you can factor in "Playoff Mahomes" into a number or percentage? But, I know I'd put my money on Playoff Mahomes.

There wasn't going to be second possession for the 49ers unless they could hold the Chiefs without scoring or force them to kick a field goal. The Chiefs were going for 2 if the situation arose.

The 49ers just failed to stop the Chiefs on a game tying drive. The clock was running out, so the Chiefs kicked a field goal to force OT. It was highly probable that Mahomes would do the same thing in OT. If ture, that would eliminate any possible advantage of taking the ball first.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree you are stating facts but....

Giving Mahomes the ball with a chance to win the SB with a TD is not factored into those stats. Playoff Mahomes is a totally different beast and have no idea how you can factor in "Playoff Mahomes" into a number or percentage? But, I know I'd put my money on Playoff Mahomes.

But KC had scored one TD in their previous 6 quarters. Wasn't exactly a slam-dunk that they'd score one in the OT period. If it were that easy, they'd have done it in regulation.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

But KC had scored one TD in their previous 6 quarters. Wasn't exactly a slam-dunk that they'd score one in the OT period. If it were that easy, they'd have done it in regulation.

The 49ers probably made the "correct" analytical decisions based on a win probability model. Basically how often does it go 0-0, 3-3, 7-7 or 8-8. I imagine it goes 3-3 a decent amount and rarely 0-0. If that even happens 20% of the time then you are trying to deduce if the advantage you gave the other team by letting them go 2nd with 4 downs is worth more or less than that say 20%.

I think every coach should understand you have to go for 2 if the other team scores 7 and you answer with a TD.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

If you have 4 plays to score you are more likely to score than if you only have 3. That's just common sense. You don't need statistics to tell you that.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Rausch

If you have 4 plays to score you are more likely to score than if you only have 3. That's just common sense. You don't need statistics to tell you that.

Sure. And having two possessions makes you more likely to win than the team that only gets one. Both of these are true, which is why the probabilities aren't as far off as you think.

In my opinion, the 9ers' fatal flaw was kicking the FG, not taking the ball first.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I get the reaction to Gipson, but it's not like he was saying that stuff at the podium or to the fans. He was just trying to hype his guys up. It didn't work, but I don't blame him for saying it.

Normally trash talk doesn’t bother me but this one struck a nerve.

I understand what you’re saying. It’s like a “We just made God bleed. We can do this.” but.. to say Mahomes is a regular QB? lol

Shades of Mccleon’s “Tom Brady.. overrated” on the sidelines of their Super Bowl.

It’s just doing too much.

Originally Posted by Calcountry

I was listening to KNBR on the drive home and one fool calls and it went on a rant lighting up the coach blaming him for not going for it on fourth down, knowing that Mahomes is on the other side and lighting him up for taking the ball first etc. yada yada yada what a bunch of pussies

What’s the issue here? Chiefs fans would be doing the same had we lost.

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

Agreed. You get the advantage of first possession in the case of sudden death. And up to that point, the only TD we had scored was on a fluke punt return fumble recovery. Why shouldn’t they have felt OK about their odds of stopping us from scoring a TD again?

You also get the benefit of resting your defense who was just on the field to end the game (though I know Shanahan says that didn’t factor into his decision).

There are pros and cons to either situation. I’m glad they chose to receive but don’t blame Shanny there at all.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Agreed. You get the advantage of first possession in the case of sudden death. And up to that point, the only TD we had scored was on a fluke punt return fumble recovery. Why shouldn’t they have felt OK about their odds of stopping us from scoring a TD again?

You also get the benefit of resting your defense who was just on the field to end the game (though I know Shanahan says that didn’t factor into his decision).

There are pros and cons to either situation. I’m glad they chose to receive but don’t blame Shanny there at all.

Yeah, that's another good point. Mahomes had just driven down the field with ease to end the 4th and probably would have scored the TD if it weren't for the clock running out on us. Their D was gassed.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Yeah, that's another good point. Mahomes had just driven down the field with ease to end the 4th and probably would have scored the TD if it weren't for the clock running out on us. Their D was gassed.

So was our D. If we dont score a TD, they would be going against our gassed D with only a FG to win.

[jerryaldini]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

Another factor is Mahomes had said after the game they were going for 2 if they got a TD, eliminating the benefit of three possessions in the SF gets a TD first scenario. Imagine how intense that would have been. Crazy to think about

[ChiTown]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

At first, I thought they were crazy AF to take the ball. However, if you look at it from the perspective that they had just finished the game in regulation playing D on a drive they stopped inside their 10, they probably figured their D was physically cashed, and they wanted to give them more time to rest up. I'm not sure they'd admit to that, but I bet it went into the decision making. And honestly, the only part of their team in OT that still looked somewhat fresh was (remarkably) their DL. That back 7 looked physically smoked.

It's never a good idea to give the other team, especially Mahomes, the luxury of another down if the need it. But, I get what they may have been thinking.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While true, it's not as clear-cut as everyone's acting like it is. Everyone's using logic based on college rules, which works to some extent, but in the NFL's version, it becomes sudden death after both teams have touched the ball. So, for example, if the 9ers kicked a FG and they held the Chiefs to a FG, the 9ers would just need one more FG to win it.

We don't have any historical data to get a feel for the actual probabilities, but it's likely gonna be somewhere between 40-60% probabilities for either approach. I still think kicking is the way to go, but it's not the 30-70% variation people are acting like it is.

With the new rules, if the 1st team scores a TD and kicks the XP, the opposing team is stupid if they score a TD and don't go for 2 to win it. You have the ball at the 2 yard line. I doubt if any of these games get to a 3rd possession unless it's FG/FG.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

With the new rules, if the 1st team scores a TD and kicks the XP, the opposing team is stupid if they score a TD and don't go for 2 to win it. You have the ball at the 2 yard line. I doubt if any of these games get to a 3rd possession unless it's FG/FG.

I agree with that, but this was also the SB with the most FGs ever kicked. And if you assumed that that continued, and if your defense was exhausted, it's not the wrong call.

The very fact that there's a real debate over this and that it depends on the circumstances of the game tells you that the NFL got this right as no side has a clear advantage based on the outcome of the coin flip.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

I agree with that, but this was also the SB with the most FGs ever kicked. And if you assumed that that continued, and if your defense was exhausted, it's not the wrong call.

The very fact that there's a real debate over this and that it depends on the circumstances of the game tells you that the NFL got this right as no side has a clear advantage based on the outcome of the coin flip.

I would always want the 2nd possession, unless, as you said, you felt your defense was that exhausted. However, that was not his reasoning.