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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

This. It’s not like their defense never got close like ours did in 2018. They had a shot.

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

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

Going to be a day really soon where a coach actually tries this.

Ten bucks says it's math boy down in former San Diego

[wazu]

Might be a better than average chance as it would have been a surprise. For this particular game I'd say it sounds like a pretty good idea.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brother

You morons realize a TD on the opening drive is never a given right? Chiefs still had to earn it and were close to being stopped.

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.

[DaFace]

Should? That's probably taking it too far. But yes, it's a viable strategy they could have considered.

[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.

[DaFace]

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.

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.

[kstater]

The answer is no. Even bad defenses, and gassed defenses, have a better than 15%(if you believe that number is that high) of holding to a fg or less over a surprise onside kick

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

[suzzer99]

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.

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

[suzzer99]

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.

From what I found on the interwebs - surprise onside kicks used to be 18% before the new rules, expected we sub 10%. Since the new rules - expected have gone down to 5% and surprise have gone down to 10%.

But that 10% is a pretty small sample size and may be bad luck. I don't know why the new rules would impact surprise kicks that much since you'd never line everyone up on one side of the ball.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Absolutely yes. I also thought we should have in 2018. They were never going to stop Mahomes.

The "feeling" in that game and Bills was that neither team was going to stop them. However, I'm sure a probability model would disagree with you. Onside kicking would be pretty bad.

[Rain Man]

Interesting thought, but I don't think that I'd do it on first glance. Onside kicks don't work very often these days, so the odds are very strong that you're giving the other team the ball at your own 40 to 50. That may not tilt the odds of giving up a touchdown substantially, but it does tilt those odds. More importantly, it makes the odds of giving up a field goal very high, which means that you'd be required to come back with a score.

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

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.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Interesting thought, but I don't think that I'd do it on first glance. Onside kicks don't work very often these days, so the odds are very strong that you're giving the other team the ball at your own 40 to 50. That may not tilt the odds of giving up a touchdown substantially, but it does tilt those odds. More importantly, it makes the odds of giving up a field goal very high, which means that you'd be required to come back with a score.

Remember that if you recover the onside kick you only need a field goal to win the game. So it's not just straight % recover vs. % give up TD. I feel like people aren't factoring that in.

You probably need to weight recover heavier due to only needed to go 20 yards or w/e for a fairly easy FG attempt to win the game outright.

[suzzer99]

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.

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.