Should the Bills have onside kicked to start OT?

[suzzer99]

I want to have a serious discussion about whether the Bills should have onside kicked it (or the Chiefs should have in 2018).

According to this, receiving counts as "an opportunity to possess the ball" even if you never touch it:

... only a Field Goal is required to win the game. This is because it is deemed that the receiving team in both instances has had their opportunity to possess the ball.

From the 2019 NFL Rulebook: Rule 16 - Section 1 - Article 3

Article 3. Extra Period

[...]

(e) The opportunity to possess applies only during kicking plays. A kickoff is the opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity. A punt or field goal attempt that crosses the line of scrimmage and is muffed by the receiving team is considered to be an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Normal touching rules by the kicking team apply.

So if Buffalo onside kicked it and made it, they could win with a field goal. If they don't make it, it's like a normal kick and the Chiefs still need a TD to win outright.

The other arguments for onside kicking are that your defense is gassed and Mahomes will probably get into field goal range at least. So either way you need your defense to make a stand and hold to a field goal. But with the onside kick they'd be less tired. Of course it's also possible the Bills would stop Mahomes in Chiefs territory after a normal kickoff. But we all know that isn't happening for Mahomes or Allen.

Looks like surprise onside kick has about 10-18% chance to succeed based on which stats you look at. Although would it be a total surprise in this case? Maybe. I feel like since no team has ever done this afaik, it would be a surprise at least the first time.

I'd love to see the math if you think you have a 15% chance of recovery. Because kicking off feels like an 80% chance of eventually giving up a game-ending TD in this particular game - for either team.

Maybe you try an onside kick where you kick it really hard at one of the guys on the front line. If you miss it's basically a squib kick.

[Marcellus]

DeBerg thinks this is a dumb idea.

[Shields68]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Since the new OT rules the first team has gone down the field and score a TD 7 out of 11 times in the postseason. Probably a small sample size.

But when you have two of the most high powered offenses of all time, in the playoffs, and you know your defense is gassed - maybe 7/11 is actually low.

The only way this works is that if in scouting you see a tendency to exploit in the chiefs return lineup. The odds of recovering are extremely low. To give up 30 yards in position is not worth the risk.

[suzzer99]

Yeah probably. The other thing you could do is just try to drill it at one of the front guys on the onside kick. If you miss completely, it turns out like a squib kick. If it hits him, you probably have a > 50% chance of recovery.

Let's say we can rewind the clock to the start of OT in 2018 AFCCG. We don't know what's going to happen. I'd love for Andy to try to drill one of the Pats guys and at least get a chance at recovery.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Shields68

The only way this works is that if in scouting you see a tendency to exploit in the chiefs return lineup. The odds of recovering are extremely low. To give up 30 yards in position is not worth the risk.

If you think they got crucified for not squib kicking the kickoff with 13seconds left, had they tried an onside kick and not recovered? Whoa Nelly.

All these revisionist questions keep popping up because they lost because THEY GOT OUTPLAYED in the end.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Carr4MVP

No.

You kick it off. Going 70-80 yards is still difficult for any offense. One penalty can halt a drive. It only takes one strip sack or fumble. One tipped ball can become an interception.

As much as we heard about how Buffalo having the #1 defense all game and for the week leading up to the game, it seems like they should have had a decent chance of stopping KC.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Spott

That pass to Kelce on 3rd and 1 was actually a tough play because Mahomes was scrambling to his left. If we don’t get that play, it’s 4th and 1 from our own 34 and we would have been facing a major decision whether or not to go for it.

I know Andy is often conservative, but after watching both offensives go up and down the field in the last few minutes...

If I was the coach, I'm not giving the ball away because I'm afraid I can't pick up a yard. I'm far more afraid that the Bills will easily move the ball into field goal range if I kick from the 34.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Spott

As much as we heard about how Buffalo having the #1 defense all game and for the week leading up to the game, it seems like they should have had a decent chance of stopping KC.

I think this is what they believed. I don't buy the stuff about a miscommunication on the squib kick, I think they thought their (#1 DVOA) defense had a better chance of stopping us for 13 seconds than their (#19 DVOA) special teams did of preventing a return.

As for the onside kick, it's interesting strategically in a larger sense. For Buffalo specifically it's hard to separate it from hindsight. They lost, so obviously they should have done something different. But they had the #1 defense, it's quite a reach to say they should have made a move that's essentially saying "we don't trust our defense at all".

[golfindude]

I think the biggest failure of the Bills was to defense the sidelines with 13 seconds left. Did they not realize we had 3 TO's. Andy took a chance going to the middle of the field and his players pulled it off. I give Andy, Pat and team credit for that. Huge, genius coaching decision.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The slight variation on the calculation is that SURPRISE onside kicks tend to have a much better chance of success. I'm not sure what the actual percent is, but I believe it's in the 30-40% range. But still, it's pretty risky even if you modify it based on that figure.

It's pretty hard to "surprise" a team with an onside kick, to be honest, unless you're not aligning for it. Not sure what the stats would be there either but I can't imagine they are anywhere near 30-40% or teams would try it much more frequently.

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Remember you only need a FG to win if you recover the onside kick. I can't tell if you were factoring that in.

Yep, I was running through it quick mid-sandwich but that's where I think I stated 15% to win the kick then 45% chance to score thereafter (score being any score) from about your own 45 being like 7% to win. A TD would happen about 2/3's of that 45% (30%) under "normal" conditions which puts TD to win around 4.5%. Now, we can probably guess a FG would happen 100% of that time and scoring metrics may adjust based on field position for a FG over the "normal." That's impossible to get stats for unless you're an NFL team paying an awful lot of money for those specific ones. I can only go off what's known.

[crispystl]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Actually, we had New England in 3rd and 10 like three times in OT and they converted every time.

Yeah I was gonna say we had New England in quite a few 3rd and longs that game. They just converted every.damn.single.one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Running through my head the math...

Historically, the probability of a team scoring is about equivalent to the yards from its own endzone they begin their possession at. So, starting from the 25 yields a score 25% of the time. I feel like that trend is changing slightly and may be higher, but I haven't looked at it in a few years now.

Both the Bills and Chiefs were in the upper echelon of the NFL and had a 2:1 TD to FG ratio. So, based on above there should be about a 17% chance that either team scores a TD when starting from their own 25.

Now, if the onside kick fails then it's likely the other team will start at approximately the opponent 45, which changes the likelihood of scoring to 55% and the likelihood of a TD to about 37%

So, tradeoffs... If you have a 15% chance of winning the onside kick and 45% chance of scoring thereafter, then you're at about a 7% win probability versus a 37% chance of losing the game if it fails, it seems better to not do it. You hedge your bets that you have an 83% the other team doesn't score a TD.

This perfectly encapsulates the problem with NFL analytics; there is way too much team to team and situation to situation variance. You can't honestly believe that KC only had a 17% chance of scoring a TD in that situation. We all knew, KNEW, that when KC won the toss, the game was over. And for good reason too. Those historic percentages simply don't apply. I'd venture the true probability was much closer to 80%.

[POND_OF_RED]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Since the new OT rules the first team has gone down the field and score a TD 7 out of 11 times in the postseason. Probably a small sample size.

But when you have two of the most high powered offenses of all time, in the playoffs, and you know your defense is gassed - maybe 7/11 is actually low.

Getting a stop 4/11 times is going to be better odds than recovering an onside kick in the NFL with the new kickoff rules. The analytics don’t even support the hindsight thinking.

[suzzer99]

4/11 times vs. random team is not the same as 4/11 times vs. Mahomes when you know your defense is completely gassed.