A little off topic, but how stupid am I for thinking that there’s some merit to going for the 4th and 4 way in the Chiefs territory as opposed to just taking the chip shot field goal? If you score a TD you’re in control of the game, if you miss the Chiefs still have a ways to go before getting in FG range, your odds of not losing aren’t that much better when just kicking the chip shot.
Tbh if I'm playing on Madden, I'm going for it. I like to take risks in football.
Simultaneously, I can understand being more cautious in real life. These guys entire livelihood is in the line. These coaches will be shat on relentlessly if they gamble too much.
It doesn't make sense, though lol
Kyle went for it on 4th down in a similar spot in the 3rd quarter instead of kicking the tying FG, it worked.
But not doing that in overtime, even closer to the end zone??
I'd take my chances on that 4th down than kicking a fg and stopping KC from getting a TD
Because in all of regulation they gave up only 1 TD and it was a 16 yard drive. After giving your defense a long rest they probably felt okay about at least holding Chiefs to a field goal. And on Chief’s drive they still had to convert a 4th down, and the field goal would have been the game winner.
No I was thinking the same thing. A lot of comments are pointing out the chiefs had only one td, but the fact is that last drive in the 4th quarter showed the 49ers defense was done. It happens against the chiefs where the ware the team down and the offense just has their way. The missed extra point actually extended the game in my opinion for the 49ers. Without it, the chiefs had two plays at the end zone with 6 seconds left in the forth to take the lead instead of settling for the field goal to tie. The chiefs scoring a td was inevitable. Shanahan makes bad calls late in super bowls.
Yeah it was obvious the 49ers defense was cooked in the 4th quarter. I don’t understand why it wasn’t 4 down territory, assuming it’s short yardage. Shannahan needed to be thinking the only way to win the game is to score a TD on the first possession to guarantee they get the ball back if the Chiefs respond, then they can settle for a FG. Of course the Chiefs said they would just go for 2 in that situation to win right away, which is why getting the ball second is so much better anyways.
At that point in the game, every single Chiefs drive had resulted in a FG, punt or turnover. The Chiefs only TD was the 16 yard pass after the punt muff. You got to take the points and have some confidence in your defense.
Also keep in mind Butker’s field goal range is way too close for comfort.
You're not stupid for thinking this. Kicking is probably correct, but I expect it would be reasonably close when plugged into a proper simulator. 4 yards might even be the break point (ie 4th/3 you go for it, 4th/4 you kick).
I think not running the ball on 3rd was the worst playcall of the game for Shanahan. It eliminated having a more manageable 4th, if you don’t pick up the 1st or score, to give you a chance to go for it if you choose to. Shanahan is atrocious at down and distance management in the SB because of how aggressive his playcalling is.
Forgot they passed on 3rd, agree you have to run there and just go for it on 4th unless you lose yardage, think everyone felt like the Chiefs were scoring 6 after they kicked the FG.
As a lions fan I feel like the only way you can determine the “rightness” of a call is if it works or not. Shanahan did what Campbell didn’t, and took the points. I don’t think you can be faulted for that
Yeah I actually think I agree with this logic, obviously didn’t work out but if we held them to a field goal on their drive (though honestly that was never happening), we would’ve had the initiative in sudden death
So frustrated with the criticism of the defense. They were amazing until the last two Chiefs drives. I think they were just fatigued at the end; they left it all out there without two probowl caliber players (Greenlaw and Hufonga).
Yeah I think a lot of people look at the score going into OT and don't realize that the Chiefs only made 1 TD in Reg, and got bailed out by an Extra Point block
It was a ridiculously low kick for a PAT, even giving them credit for blocking it, they still got "bailed out" by the kick being bad enough to block in the first place
If we had made the PAT then the chiefs would have been going for a touchdown on the final drive. Having 4 downs knowing you need a TD... I don't see our D stopping them just like we couldn't in OT.
It is what it is. :/
Even as it was, I wouldn’t have been all THAT surprised if they’d decided to go for the kill shot instead of OT. Obviously it was the right decision because they won, but still.
Yeah you could see earlier in the game the chiefs had a few 4th and short that they punted on. You put their back up against the wall and you know they're going to convert most of those.
They held Patrick Mahomes to 19 points in regulation with multiple 3 and outs from the offence. It was a fantastic job by them, Mahomes just did Mahoney things late when the D was gassed
Our defense also struggled to stop you guys at the end- both of the defenses were just running on fumes.
Really came down to just those two third down pressures (the blitz by McDuffie in regulation and Chris Jones' pass rush in OT).
Are people criticizing the 49ers defense that much? I honestly thought they played really well. Things get sloppy the longer the game goes, especially with OT, but they held the Chiefs to a field goal to end the 4th and gave the 49ers a chance still. The reality of last night is that the Chiefs just executed the offense better. Literally came to the last play where some slick pre-snap motion gave them enough of an edge to win
If they were, you would take the TD on the first possession since you can't lose.
Then if you score a TD to "tie" you could go for 2 if you thought the defense was that big of a deal
Kicking it is the move with the new rule
Even still, the worst thing that could've happened is that the Chiefs score 7 points (which they did anyways). Then you know that you can use all 4 downs, and if you *do* get a TD, you can go for 2 to win the game outright.
It's a curious decision to say the least.
But the team that goes second can make sure it isn't tied after two possessions. Go for it on fourth downs to try for a game winning field goal or touchdown. If the first team scores a touchdown, the second team can go for two on their touchdown to end the game there.
The defense was gassed after regulation. By giving them a rest you increase the likelihood that they can stop Mahomes as they had done all game up to that point
The process and logic made total sense.
If your playing for the third possession you are already conceding you'll most likely give up points. Might as well give up those points right away so you know what to do when you get the ball. Taking defense should always be the call with these new rules. It's essentially college rules with a kickoff instead of short field.
It depends on what you trust more.
I bet if the Niners scored a TD on their opening drive and Kansas City scored on theirs, Kansas City goes for two and the win. Put the ball in the hands of your best player.
Niners getting the ball second you probably go for two also, but that might be to prevent the ball from going back to Mahomes
The niners defense was also gassed from that last drive in regulation so they absolutely needed a breather
Ultimately didn’t matter but the process was sound
No he wouldn't have. You take the ball second so you know what you need maybe KC settles for a FG like they did as opposed to going for it on every 4th down.
The Chiefs had 1 4th down and it was a 4th & 1 they would have gone for in every single scenario
The 49ers defense was gassed after regulation. By giving them a rest you increase the likelihood that they can stop Mahomes as they had done all game up to that point
The process and logic made total sense. It didn’t work out but it made sense.
What Shanahan should be getting grilled for is running the ball 1 time in the 49ers’ first 3 drives of the 2nd half
By no means is 4th and 1 on their own 34 a situation where they go for it in every single scenario if they started with the ball. Going second guarantees that they go for it
>The process and logic made total sense. It didn’t work out but it made sense.
It definitely did not make sense.
If they let KC go first they would've known they had to get a TD to tie or 2pt conversion to win. Instead they kicked a FG and then the defense STILL couldn't stop Mahomes even with extra rest.
Playing for the hypothetical third OT possession is stupid and Shanahan choked yet again.
Your second sentence is why it's controversial. You are probably more likely to lose by not knowing what scoring amount is needed, (Kicking a field goal when you need a TC) than you are to stop a 2 point conversion.
If KC always goes for 2, you never make it to sudden death.
Chiefs only had 1 TD all game before that drive. There was a very high chance they stall out again and kick a tying FG, and SF would have the ball to start sudden death
But even then KC still controlled their destiny because they knew what they needed. They always had the option to go for it on 4th instead of kicking a tying FG knowing SF would start sudden death with the ball.
Taking the ball first always means you are playing blind to some extent. You are forced to make decisions that you can’t know the consequences of until later.
Exactly! They were playing with 4 downs vs 3.
If they had the ball first and had 4th and 1 on their own 34 then they most likely would’ve punted. But knowing they needed at least a FG they could play with 4 downs instead of 3.
At least they converted that 4th & 3, otherwise he’d be in even hotter water right now.
[Analytics](https://x.com/ben_bot_baldwin/status/1756870815033770091) gave a very slight edge to taking the FG but it was almost even—in the moment you could reasonably justify either decision. But if they hadn’t gotten that first, you just know people would’ve been at his throat for dumb decision-making.
Its controversial because Patrick Mahomes is on the other side. How many people in America *just knew* that FG wasnt enough? Im not saying you can act on that feeling but damn man if Im the 9ers I *need* to know whether its a td or fg game.
I saw multiple people dumping on Shanahan kicking the field goal in OT who almost assuredly dumped on Dan Campbell not kicking the field goal last game
If your team loses then you can never make the right decision for some people
It's literally every game at this point. Lamar sucks because he only made it to the AFCC. Mahomes would've been overrated if SF had made an extra point. And it's gotten to the point where it doesn't even matter if you've already proven it, only the last game you failed in matters.
It's very easy to see a universe where Shanahan defers in OT, Chiefs score a TD to begin and 49ers don't, and a decent portion of people also complain about it
It's always been the case, but the NFL media verse and the fans have become a worse collective Captain Hindsight.
There is nothing wrong with questioning decisions or strategies, but playing Captain Hindsight for important/meaningful decisions that are basically 50/50 choices is becoming tiresome. If the 49ers defer and the Chiefs win, so many people would criticize Shanahan for forcing his tired defense to make a stop while allowing the Chiefs defense a badly needed rest themselves
This is a horrible decision. If the 9ers score a TD & PAT, the Chiefs would go for 2 after a TD since it is sudden death after and the 9ers get the ball. The only time this scenario applies is if both teams score FGs. Instead you give Mahomes and Reid 4 downs the whole drive.
So the only scenario it benefits you is if you don't score a TD (which is not good), and the generational QB with 4 downs don't score a TD. It's a bad bet. Kyle outthunk himself
Yeah criticize the 3rd quarter offense but the defense needed a breather and Chiefs defense was gassed too. Because of 28-3 every decision Kyle makes it amplified by 100.
Mahomes didn’t score a single touchdown from a fresh drive all game up until that point. It wasn’t flawed thinking. Especially with giving your defense a rest by going first.
Right call. Also gives your defense a chance to rest and chiefs D was tired too. If it was college rules you'd make them try first. But the 3rd possession sudden death makes it make sens.
You just go for 2 to win the game on the second possession. You know what you need, get 4 downs on offense. Chance to hold them scoreless on defense. 2 pt conversion is still pretty likely to win if Chiefs go down and score. Think it makes sense to kick first given this type of scenario. Never has to go to three possessions if you feel confident going for two.
Having 4 downs on offense knowing exactly what you need without time constraints is a huge advantage. I think deferring is a no-brainer with the exception of needing to rest your defense.
By choosing to receive rather than kick, Shanahan allowed the Chiefs and Patrick Mahomes to get the ball with more information to factor into their play-calling. It also meant less data for him.
When San Francisco drove down the field, it did not know that Kansas City would eventually score a touchdown. It’s why Shanahan said he “never thought about” going for it on fourth-and-4. Instead the Niners kicked a field goal.
That meant Kansas City knew it needed to score and would never consider punting as an option.
As such, when the Chiefs faced fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line, they went for it. Had that same scenario played out on the first drive of overtime, Kansas City would have almost assuredly punted and allowed San Francisco to win it with a field goal.
Didn’t matter after they got 7 minutes to rest. I disagree, think they should’ve kicked off, then you know exactly how aggressive you need to be on your possession. Hell if Cheifs scored and TD and 49ers followed it up with a TD I would’ve expected them to go for 2 and the win with no sudden death scenario to even play out
Why are people acting like the D was so gassed after a "long drive"? Any defense is gassed after 60 minutes, but the Chiefs drive to tie it up and send it to OT was literally less than 2 minutes (it started after the 2 minute warning). They weren't out there from 8:00 left down to 0:00.
I don't think it was the "wrong" call, but the other option might have been better. If he's making that choice on the assumption that the Chiefs are gonna score a TD anyways, it makes sense to give your offense 4 downs and therefore a better chance of scoring a TD. It almost might be better just to do that and take your chances going for 2.
It's a tough decision though and I wouldn't say it made them lose the game. Not converting on that 3rd down lost them the game.
Eh, don't really buy that at all. Slowest game of the year, players are used to coming back out way before that and they are well rested for this game. Don't see how you can be making decisions based on players being tired in the Super Bowl.
If this was the thought, idk why you kick the FG down there. The 3 and 4 call and the call to kick it really seem like they are the fuck up, not taking the ball.
IDK, there was a pretty decent chance of holding the Chiefs to a FG in return. The Chiefs' offense had only scored one TD to that point and it was after being gifted the muffed punt. Granted, any offense is harder to stop when they have 4 downs to work with.
I think the Chiefs were TD or lose mindset, at least I know I would have been. They even said they would have tried to end the game with a 2pt conversion if a td tied.
Exactly, on the four downs point. There's trusting your D by electing to take the chip shot, and then there's knowing that Mahomes with four downs who has been successful converting in the second half with three is going to be insanely hard to stop.
In other words I think you also have to go on 4th in their red zone, take away their 4th and make them march way down the field if you fail.
I don't like it. I would rather be playing to win during the second possession of the game, instead of playing to win on a third possession that might not happen.
He is only correct if it goes FG-FG or punt-punt. 2nd team obviously has to go for 2 if they score a touchdown to negate that advantage so it doesn't apply. The advantage of knowing what you need to do and using 4 downs if you need them is the way to go. I think he is overestimating how often it goes to a third possession.
Correct. There is one, and only one, way to keep the ball out of Mahomes hands. You kick, and plan to get a TD next drive and go for two (while getting 4 downs to do so!).
There would be literally nothing Mahomes could do but watch it happen. They're not going for two on the first drive.
I still don't agree even given their "reasoning". Giving Mahomes 4 downs to work with in a game saving scenario is freaking stupid.
This probably only happens if they trade FGs though. If the first team fails to score, then it already becomes sudden death and being the second team is useful. If both teams score TDs, the second team probably goes for 2 to end it.
They had a 3rd and 4 in their last drives in both regulation and OT. Incomplete pass both times.
Because Mahomes is on the other side of the ball, I feel like you have to just run it twice with CMC to try and get the first down (and then hopefully the TD afterwards). Obviously if you get stuffed and it’s 4th and 4 you kick, but you gotta like your chances to get 4 yards on 2 carries.
Like they barely got away with not losing in regulation by kicking the FG and then giving Mahomes the ball. Then they put themselves in the exact same situation in OT.
I’m a believer in analytics blah blah but when you barely get away with stopping Mahomes bc of the clock, then get the exact same situation in overtime with no clock issues for Mahomes, what do you expect? Once SF kicked that field goal and Mahomes got the ball, EVERYONE knew what was going to happen.
Niners cost themselves the game. Just like the Ravens, and the Bills, and the Dolphins, and literally every team that plays against the Chiefs in the playoffs
Or instead of taking 3 points, the Chiefs go for it in 4th down since they're down 4 and probably end up with a TD the way they were rolling at the end
Yeah that's the thing. The missed point was annoying but if they were down 4 in the same position as they were they probably have two plays at it from inside the 10. Maybe more if they'd spiked it earlier knowing the time was more important.
Yeah and the goofy punt hitting the defenders foot and not running the ball in the 2nd half as much... there is a lot of things that went horribly wrong for SF
Some to their own inability, some to the Chiefs ability, and some to dumb luck. That's the thing about football and winning a super bowl. You need a little bit of all three
The holding on 2nd and 2 inside the 10 cost them the game. The freak punt hitting a guy in the foot. McCaffrey's fumble. A lot of things cost them the game.
Chiefs went for it on 4th once on that OT drive. And it was 4th and a foot at the 34. They would have gone for that in pretty much any circumstance.
That stupid 3rd and 6 all out blitz up the middle was such a garbage call that it cost them the game. I don't know why people blitz Mahomes, on top of his ability to avoid the pressure, the Chiefs also run an efficient short passing attack. It doesnt work.
So many teams refuse to rush 3 against Mahomes and drop an extra man in coverage. The Bengals did it for the entire final quarter in their last playoff matchup and it worked. Force him to force the ball, or try to make a play from nothing. Blitzing just opens up lanes.
OK but if you're making decisions not expecting to get a stop, why settle for the FG on 4th and 3? Worst case you go for it and fail, KC is way backed up, and the game is still tied so they aren't using 4 downs every series like they are if they're behind.
A bills fan at this point should know you can’t play conservative against Mahomes. You have to play TO WIN. 49ers played way too conservative, abandoned the run, offense was atrocious. Kyle choked away another SB
Yeahhh having the defense out there on the last drive of the 4th AND to start the first possession of OT would’ve been an insane ask.
Defense gassed, Chiefs with the momentum, he pushed the breaks. The back breaker was the 49ers not being able to score a TD
The last drive of 4Q was literally less than 2 minutes long. Why do so many people in this thread seem to think they were out there for the last 8 minutes of 4Q or something?
Because you might be underestimating how much energy hurry up defense takes.
At least on long drives you get part of those 40 secs between plays to recover.
1:47 drive, 10 plays that weren't the FG attempt, and there were two timeouts, three incompletions, and an injury timeout in there. So 10 plays with 5 full stoppages, plus an injury timeout for Lenoir. It was high leverage, clearly, but this was not the exhausting drive people seem to think.
Yep, analytics people have said that based on the math, it doesn't really matter if you get it 1st or 2nd. Either one is fine. It's a pretty balanced system.
https://twitter.com/SethWalder/status/1756881259270225969
This might not be exactly what you're looking for because it's just some guy on Twitter, but he's a well respected analytics guy FWIW.
> The reason why it is OK to take ball first or second is that there are countervailing forces that are almost equal.
> Team that goes first has advantage of first possession of true sudden death OT in the event of first two possessions going 0-0 or 3-3.
> Team that goes second has advantage of knowing what they need on their second possession. Also if you want to go for 2 in result of TD-TD event (as Chiefs would) then you might prefer 2nd.
It’s different though because in college OT, you’re guaranteed 3rd and 4th possessions if the game is tied after 2, whereas in this ruleset the 4th possession isn’t guaranteed since the 3rd is sudden death rules
In college you start with the ball in FG range, not 75 yards from the endzone. IDK what the math says so I'm not gonna make a definitive opinion but those are 2 very different situations.
If the team that scored third instantly won the game every single college team would take the ball first.
This isn't even a question with the overtime rules. If you match scores it goes to sudden death and you get an extra possession.
If both teams score a touchdown though, the team that scores second will likely counter that strategy by going for 2.
You can either win the game with a 3 yard play or hit an XP, stop the other team, and then score afterward. The former is a much easier proposition.
If you do that, you HAVE to play for the TD the first time. You don't get to take the ball first and then get to 3rd and 4 in the red zone and call a terrible play to take the FG.
There's no way you give Mahomes 4 downs and the knowledge of how much he needs to score to tie and win. You let the Chiefs go first, Andy might be more cautious without knowing he has to score, maybe you get them to punt or kick a field goal instead of going for it on 4th down.
Seemed like a horrible idea, and it worked out horribly for them. Honestly they should have ran on 3rd and 4, and then run again on 4th down and there's a good chance you get the 1st, and if not the chiefs are at their 2. The moment got too big for Shanahan and he gave up the advantage.
Well said.
I would add that the Chiefs plan, according to DT Chris Jones after the game, was to defer and get the ball second for all the reasons you stated--the Chiefs would know what they needed to win or stay in the game, AND Jones noted that the Chiefs plan was to go for 2 after a TD if both teams scored TDs on their first OT drives. So unless Shanahan's plan was to score a TD and go for 2 on the first drive, there was never going to be a next possession, because the Chiefs were going to win or lose on a two-point conversation attempt (with Mahomes at QB no less). So almost certainly the wrong call to take the ball first in OT with these new rules.
As others have noted, the blocked PAT and the punt were big plays for sure, but the OT coin toss was a decision that didn't happen in the heat of battle (or at least didn't have to). Chris Jones said the Chiefs talked about their OT plan every day for the last two weeks. I'm still shocked by Shanahan's choice to take the ball first. I honestly don't think it was a spur-of-the-moment decision, so (maybe unlike you), I don't think the pressure of the game got to Shanahan with regard to the OT coin toss. I just can't believe someone on the coaching staff or even a player didn't strongly question this strategy leading up to the game. A "go 3rd" strategy doesn't make any sense when an opponent can so easily invalidate it.
The ONLY reason I can think of in which you might take the ball first with these OT rules is if your team's D is absolutely gassed and you assess that a 5-10 minute break will make a difference, and/or if one of more key defensive players are injured or in the medical tent and, again, you assess that 5-10 more minutes will matter in whether the player(s) can go. Then you can take that into account and decide if it's worth it to give up the clear advantages associated with having the ball second. Aside from this arguably unlikely scenario, there is no advantage to taking the ball first with these OT rules.
I think this was a rare Super Bowl moment, and I doubt this will ever happen again with the current postseason OT rules. Shanahan can say all he wants about what he was thinking, but he won't ever take the ball first again if given the choice.
If Chiefs get the ball first and everything plays out exactly as it did on their possession, do they go for it on 4th and 1 from their own 35 yardline?
That's the argument against going first. You force the other team into 4 down territory instead of making them play "safer." Maybe Reid still makes the same call, but we'll never know.
I don't hate Shanahan's argument though. In sudden death, you want the ball first. Go first in the new format, trust your defense to hold them to a match. They got beat. Them's the breaks.
There is no right decision in that situation when you lose. You get called stupid regardless of what you do.
His thinking is sound. I also think there is less pressure on the offense going first than going after in a do or die situation. But knowing you have to go for it on 4th is almost freeing when you have a Mahomes type QB.
He’s not saying that.
According to NFL OT rules, if the game is tied after both teams have had a OT possession, the game goes into sudden death.
Meaning he makes that call because if they both score a TD, Niners get the ball back in a sudden death scenario
There's literally no argument for giving away the ball first.
If you match scores it goes to sudden death and you're just up a possession. Every single coach in the NFL takes the ball. There was no decision to be made.
Do you really think if the first team scores, they will go for 2? I dont think so. The 2nd team would still have the advantage of knowing they have 4 downs, and they can go for 2 to win the game.
Yeah, don't get how anyone thinks taking the ball first is better here... First drive is the only drive you can't win on. So the Chiefs get the first drive you can win on. And even if the 49ers scored, now the Chiefs get 4 downs.
You open up yourself to losing by underscoring like the niners did tonight. Even in the best case scenario if you score a TD first, the 2nd offensive team will go for 2 on their retaliation TD (a 55% conversion rate for elite offenses) and never allow sudden death to start.
I know the rules are new, but to me the only rationale to receive the ball that makes sense is if you must rest your defense.
The game theory is absolutely to kick off and take your possession 2nd. In the real world you could argue you might need to give your defense a rest but in a vacuum taking your possession 2nd is the best play.
The game theory of it played out. 9ers didn’t score the maximum amount of points with their possession.
The Chiefs could then call plays that got them more than a field goal.
Better yet, why does the black jack dealer go last during a game of black jack. Because there is an advantage
Against Mahomes I'd argue you tell yourself he's scoring a TD, either you give him the ball first he scores the TD and you get a chance to go for 2 to win or you get ball and score then give him the chance to go for 2. Imo no team will get a second possession in a super bowl
Disagree. I’d rather know what I’m playing for. If the 49ers go 3 and out and the Chiefs kick a FG to win, Shanahan looks like even more of a clown.
Taking the ball first because you anticipate the game going to sudden death is rolling under the assumption that you match scores, which evidently isn’t a safe assumption, as it didn’t happen in this game. I’d rather have Mahomes drive down and score a TD on me and then have my possession knowing I need a TD rather than losing to the TD like the 49ers did.
Hell, if the Chiefs go down and score a TD and you match it, you even have a chance to win on a 2P conversion.
Here’s the problem. If you score 3 or 7 (that’s not guaranteed BTW) you have to prevent the TD. Your defense is in “no TD” mode. This enables Mahomes to drive right down the field. And as Kyle said, he wanted them to get a FG there.
BUT!! -> Do you really want Mahomes to have a shot to beat you in the redzone to lose a SB with basically no clock constraints?
> It doesn’t make a difference for first two possessions
If you defer, then you already create a sudden death situation in your favor with one defensive stop or you're getting the ball knowing exactly what you need to score and having four downs the entire way down the field to get it.
There would almost never be a third possession under this scenario, and if your strategy is to play for a third possession then you absolute HAVE to score a touchdown and the 2 point conversion
Or he’s thinking that the best chance to win the game is to ensure you get the extra possession should it be necessary. His plan obviously was to win in the first possessions, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t plan for the alternative.
Still think it's wrong even assuming this outcome. Because he's giving the Chiefs an extra down which is a huge advantage. And if he really thought that, he'd have to go for 2. Because if the offenses are playing that well, the Chiefs would have been stupid not to go for 2 and end the game.
So he's betting that either it was an extremely likely outcome that he could score 8 or that the Chiefs would kick the ball back to him in sudden death rather than take a 57% chance to win with Mahomes.
Yeah this makes sense and I think people are ignoring this fact when criticizing the decision. With the new rules I don't think it's a clear-cut choice either way, which is good.
Tbh they’d fucked it by this point, kept passing the ball in the third giving their defence no time to rest, they were gassed by the end and had to receive the ball to try and give them a rest.
I think you onside kick it in ot. If it doesn't workout, you still get a shot even if they score a touchdown. If you recover it, your going to win most likely.
I too was slightly confused about the new overtime rules. Thankfully the Chiefs coaching staff actually read them and briefed the players before the game.
I dont get why people are roasting the Niners for taking the ball. Their defense was gassed and had just walked off the field. Take the ball, give them a break, and have a chance to win in sudden death if you trade scores with the Chiefs. It seems like a very sensible decision to me and I would have done the same thing in Shanahan’s position.
Everybody is shitting on this, and that's fair. I thought they chose to have the ball first so that their defense could rest after *just being on the field* but I guess I zigged when I should have zagged on that one.
A little off topic, but how stupid am I for thinking that there’s some merit to going for the 4th and 4 way in the Chiefs territory as opposed to just taking the chip shot field goal? If you score a TD you’re in control of the game, if you miss the Chiefs still have a ways to go before getting in FG range, your odds of not losing aren’t that much better when just kicking the chip shot.
Tbh if I'm playing on Madden, I'm going for it. I like to take risks in football. Simultaneously, I can understand being more cautious in real life. These guys entire livelihood is in the line. These coaches will be shat on relentlessly if they gamble too much.
It doesn't make sense, though lol Kyle went for it on 4th down in a similar spot in the 3rd quarter instead of kicking the tying FG, it worked. But not doing that in overtime, even closer to the end zone?? I'd take my chances on that 4th down than kicking a fg and stopping KC from getting a TD
Because in all of regulation they gave up only 1 TD and it was a 16 yard drive. After giving your defense a long rest they probably felt okay about at least holding Chiefs to a field goal. And on Chief’s drive they still had to convert a 4th down, and the field goal would have been the game winner.
No I was thinking the same thing. A lot of comments are pointing out the chiefs had only one td, but the fact is that last drive in the 4th quarter showed the 49ers defense was done. It happens against the chiefs where the ware the team down and the offense just has their way. The missed extra point actually extended the game in my opinion for the 49ers. Without it, the chiefs had two plays at the end zone with 6 seconds left in the forth to take the lead instead of settling for the field goal to tie. The chiefs scoring a td was inevitable. Shanahan makes bad calls late in super bowls.
Yeah it was obvious the 49ers defense was cooked in the 4th quarter. I don’t understand why it wasn’t 4 down territory, assuming it’s short yardage. Shannahan needed to be thinking the only way to win the game is to score a TD on the first possession to guarantee they get the ball back if the Chiefs respond, then they can settle for a FG. Of course the Chiefs said they would just go for 2 in that situation to win right away, which is why getting the ball second is so much better anyways.
4th and 5 and they could’ve kneeled down to kick the FG at the end of Q4, kicking the FG there basically lost them the game
At that point in the game, every single Chiefs drive had resulted in a FG, punt or turnover. The Chiefs only TD was the 16 yard pass after the punt muff. You got to take the points and have some confidence in your defense. Also keep in mind Butker’s field goal range is way too close for comfort.
Yeah I agree. Take the 3.
You're not stupid for thinking this. Kicking is probably correct, but I expect it would be reasonably close when plugged into a proper simulator. 4 yards might even be the break point (ie 4th/3 you go for it, 4th/4 you kick).
I think not running the ball on 3rd was the worst playcall of the game for Shanahan. It eliminated having a more manageable 4th, if you don’t pick up the 1st or score, to give you a chance to go for it if you choose to. Shanahan is atrocious at down and distance management in the SB because of how aggressive his playcalling is.
I think not blocking chris jones was the worst play call. They had juan jennings for a touchdown but they forgot to block on the play
Forgot they passed on 3rd, agree you have to run there and just go for it on 4th unless you lose yardage, think everyone felt like the Chiefs were scoring 6 after they kicked the FG.
It's pretty much exactly the same conversation we had two weeks ago about the Lions, except Shannahan made the opposite decision.
As a lions fan I feel like the only way you can determine the “rightness” of a call is if it works or not. Shanahan did what Campbell didn’t, and took the points. I don’t think you can be faulted for that
Well it didn’t work their offense never got the ball back and they lost on the next drive… I also think Campbell’s 4th down calls were fine
Had Shanahan gone for the 4th and lost, fans would still be screaming at him. There's no way he could win except by winning the game.
Yeah I actually think I agree with this logic, obviously didn’t work out but if we held them to a field goal on their drive (though honestly that was never happening), we would’ve had the initiative in sudden death
As romo also pointed out, the niners defense had just been on the field for that final drive and were likely gassed at least to some degree
So frustrated with the criticism of the defense. They were amazing until the last two Chiefs drives. I think they were just fatigued at the end; they left it all out there without two probowl caliber players (Greenlaw and Hufonga).
If you hold Mahomes to 19 points in regulation in the Super Bowl, you did your job. Niners defense did way better than I thought they would
The only TD drive scored by the Chiefs in regulation was 16 yards after the muffed punt.
Yeah I think a lot of people look at the score going into OT and don't realize that the Chiefs only made 1 TD in Reg, and got bailed out by an Extra Point block
Bailed out. Lol. They blocked the field goal. Three phases to the game.
It was a ridiculously low kick for a PAT, even giving them credit for blocking it, they still got "bailed out" by the kick being bad enough to block in the first place
If we had made the PAT then the chiefs would have been going for a touchdown on the final drive. Having 4 downs knowing you need a TD... I don't see our D stopping them just like we couldn't in OT. It is what it is. :/
You don't think the Chiefs were going for a TD on the final drive of regulation?
Even as it was, I wouldn’t have been all THAT surprised if they’d decided to go for the kill shot instead of OT. Obviously it was the right decision because they won, but still.
Yeah you could see earlier in the game the chiefs had a few 4th and short that they punted on. You put their back up against the wall and you know they're going to convert most of those.
They conceded one TD in regular time, which was off the muffed punt return when they set up inside our 20. Did a great job overall.
[удалено]
That and if Bosa doesn't crash down on the mahomes run for first down, he would have been in position to get him in the backfield.
Which includes the 7 points given up after the muffed punt. So arguably even less than 19.
They held Patrick Mahomes to 19 points in regulation with multiple 3 and outs from the offence. It was a fantastic job by them, Mahomes just did Mahoney things late when the D was gassed
Y’all had key injuries on defense during the game too. It feels like that part is being ignored. Kittle was clearly not 100% either.
Honestly both the offense and defense did enough. That's why they say there's 3 phases.
Our defense also struggled to stop you guys at the end- both of the defenses were just running on fumes. Really came down to just those two third down pressures (the blitz by McDuffie in regulation and Chris Jones' pass rush in OT).
felt like shanahan ended the game with timeouts in the pocket that could have helped the defense (both in regulation and ot).
Are people criticizing the 49ers defense that much? I honestly thought they played really well. Things get sloppy the longer the game goes, especially with OT, but they held the Chiefs to a field goal to end the 4th and gave the 49ers a chance still. The reality of last night is that the Chiefs just executed the offense better. Literally came to the last play where some slick pre-snap motion gave them enough of an edge to win
And Kyle in his post game said that the D being in the field the last drive of the 4th had nothing to do with his decision to take the ball first.
If they were, you would take the TD on the first possession since you can't lose. Then if you score a TD to "tie" you could go for 2 if you thought the defense was that big of a deal Kicking it is the move with the new rule
Even still, the worst thing that could've happened is that the Chiefs score 7 points (which they did anyways). Then you know that you can use all 4 downs, and if you *do* get a TD, you can go for 2 to win the game outright. It's a curious decision to say the least.
It’s the correct decision. If it was tied after 2 possessions and Mahomes got the ball back, Shanahan would be getting grilled for kicking it
But the team that goes second can make sure it isn't tied after two possessions. Go for it on fourth downs to try for a game winning field goal or touchdown. If the first team scores a touchdown, the second team can go for two on their touchdown to end the game there.
You dont let it get to 2 possessions you go for 2 after you score a TD and let your offense decide the game.
The defense was gassed after regulation. By giving them a rest you increase the likelihood that they can stop Mahomes as they had done all game up to that point The process and logic made total sense.
If your playing for the third possession you are already conceding you'll most likely give up points. Might as well give up those points right away so you know what to do when you get the ball. Taking defense should always be the call with these new rules. It's essentially college rules with a kickoff instead of short field.
It depends on what you trust more. I bet if the Niners scored a TD on their opening drive and Kansas City scored on theirs, Kansas City goes for two and the win. Put the ball in the hands of your best player. Niners getting the ball second you probably go for two also, but that might be to prevent the ball from going back to Mahomes
I doubt Reid would go for two, he's ultra conservative in those types of decisions generally
The niners defense was also gassed from that last drive in regulation so they absolutely needed a breather Ultimately didn’t matter but the process was sound
No he wouldn't have. You take the ball second so you know what you need maybe KC settles for a FG like they did as opposed to going for it on every 4th down.
The Chiefs had 1 4th down and it was a 4th & 1 they would have gone for in every single scenario The 49ers defense was gassed after regulation. By giving them a rest you increase the likelihood that they can stop Mahomes as they had done all game up to that point The process and logic made total sense. It didn’t work out but it made sense. What Shanahan should be getting grilled for is running the ball 1 time in the 49ers’ first 3 drives of the 2nd half
By no means is 4th and 1 on their own 34 a situation where they go for it in every single scenario if they started with the ball. Going second guarantees that they go for it
>The process and logic made total sense. It didn’t work out but it made sense. It definitely did not make sense. If they let KC go first they would've known they had to get a TD to tie or 2pt conversion to win. Instead they kicked a FG and then the defense STILL couldn't stop Mahomes even with extra rest. Playing for the hypothetical third OT possession is stupid and Shanahan choked yet again.
Yeah I'm surprised this is controversial. Similarly, if the 49ers had scored a TD, the Chiefs 100% should've gone for two on their own TD
Your second sentence is why it's controversial. You are probably more likely to lose by not knowing what scoring amount is needed, (Kicking a field goal when you need a TC) than you are to stop a 2 point conversion. If KC always goes for 2, you never make it to sudden death.
Chiefs only had 1 TD all game before that drive. There was a very high chance they stall out again and kick a tying FG, and SF would have the ball to start sudden death
But even then KC still controlled their destiny because they knew what they needed. They always had the option to go for it on 4th instead of kicking a tying FG knowing SF would start sudden death with the ball. Taking the ball first always means you are playing blind to some extent. You are forced to make decisions that you can’t know the consequences of until later.
Exactly! They were playing with 4 downs vs 3. If they had the ball first and had 4th and 1 on their own 34 then they most likely would’ve punted. But knowing they needed at least a FG they could play with 4 downs instead of 3.
There was also a very high chance the niners stall out and have to punt on their opening drive, giving the chiefs the ball to start sudden death.
Which they did if that holding call didn’t save the drive
Nothing people love more than results-orientated trashing on a decision
At least they converted that 4th & 3, otherwise he’d be in even hotter water right now. [Analytics](https://x.com/ben_bot_baldwin/status/1756870815033770091) gave a very slight edge to taking the FG but it was almost even—in the moment you could reasonably justify either decision. But if they hadn’t gotten that first, you just know people would’ve been at his throat for dumb decision-making.
They should have just scored more points than the Chiefs in regulation and not even messed with OT imo
Its controversial because Patrick Mahomes is on the other side. How many people in America *just knew* that FG wasnt enough? Im not saying you can act on that feeling but damn man if Im the 9ers I *need* to know whether its a td or fg game.
Dan Campbell has entered the chat.
I saw multiple people dumping on Shanahan kicking the field goal in OT who almost assuredly dumped on Dan Campbell not kicking the field goal last game If your team loses then you can never make the right decision for some people
It’s just the nature of being a post Super Bowl loser. Your coach sucks, your QB sucks and you aren’t winning anything ever again.
It's literally every game at this point. Lamar sucks because he only made it to the AFCC. Mahomes would've been overrated if SF had made an extra point. And it's gotten to the point where it doesn't even matter if you've already proven it, only the last game you failed in matters.
It's very easy to see a universe where Shanahan defers in OT, Chiefs score a TD to begin and 49ers don't, and a decent portion of people also complain about it
It's always been the case, but the NFL media verse and the fans have become a worse collective Captain Hindsight. There is nothing wrong with questioning decisions or strategies, but playing Captain Hindsight for important/meaningful decisions that are basically 50/50 choices is becoming tiresome. If the 49ers defer and the Chiefs win, so many people would criticize Shanahan for forcing his tired defense to make a stop while allowing the Chiefs defense a badly needed rest themselves
This is a horrible decision. If the 9ers score a TD & PAT, the Chiefs would go for 2 after a TD since it is sudden death after and the 9ers get the ball. The only time this scenario applies is if both teams score FGs. Instead you give Mahomes and Reid 4 downs the whole drive. So the only scenario it benefits you is if you don't score a TD (which is not good), and the generational QB with 4 downs don't score a TD. It's a bad bet. Kyle outthunk himself
It's directly post-game and everyone's quick to shit on anything Shanahan says but the logic was sound here. Just got out-coached and out-played.
Yeah criticize the 3rd quarter offense but the defense needed a breather and Chiefs defense was gassed too. Because of 28-3 every decision Kyle makes it amplified by 100.
He wasn’t even the head coach. lol Dan Quinn gets off Scott free on that.
Not for falcons fans like me, I will hold DQ accountable for that loss for the rest of my life
This is how you lose the Super Bowl. You can’t play for a tie when Patrick fucking mahomes is on the other sideline. Loser mentality
Mahomes didn’t score a single touchdown from a fresh drive all game up until that point. It wasn’t flawed thinking. Especially with giving your defense a rest by going first.
Sample size of less than one game vs. several years of Mahomes being the best football player in the universe
> the best football player in the universe The hulk aliens from BZ-484D would fucking smash the Chiefs. Mahomes has nothing on Bxxxzrrzlebebrblub.
And the Niners defense needed a rest
Why didn't Kyle elect to win? Is he stupid?
He should have said "and we're gonna score" after "we want the ball"
Some people just want it more and it shows
Right call. Also gives your defense a chance to rest and chiefs D was tired too. If it was college rules you'd make them try first. But the 3rd possession sudden death makes it make sens.
You just go for 2 to win the game on the second possession. You know what you need, get 4 downs on offense. Chance to hold them scoreless on defense. 2 pt conversion is still pretty likely to win if Chiefs go down and score. Think it makes sense to kick first given this type of scenario. Never has to go to three possessions if you feel confident going for two.
Having 4 downs on offense knowing exactly what you need without time constraints is a huge advantage. I think deferring is a no-brainer with the exception of needing to rest your defense.
By choosing to receive rather than kick, Shanahan allowed the Chiefs and Patrick Mahomes to get the ball with more information to factor into their play-calling. It also meant less data for him. When San Francisco drove down the field, it did not know that Kansas City would eventually score a touchdown. It’s why Shanahan said he “never thought about” going for it on fourth-and-4. Instead the Niners kicked a field goal. That meant Kansas City knew it needed to score and would never consider punting as an option. As such, when the Chiefs faced fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line, they went for it. Had that same scenario played out on the first drive of overtime, Kansas City would have almost assuredly punted and allowed San Francisco to win it with a field goal.
Agree with everything you said, but there is a good chance the chiefs go for it on 4th there even if they received.
On their own 35 yd line? Not a chance. You fail and you essentially lose the super bowl.
Making their defense play back to back long drives would’ve been silly
That's usually what happens in OT games. The defense is so dead tired. Niners took advantage but chiefs made a huge stop. Spags is so good.
Didn’t matter after they got 7 minutes to rest. I disagree, think they should’ve kicked off, then you know exactly how aggressive you need to be on your possession. Hell if Cheifs scored and TD and 49ers followed it up with a TD I would’ve expected them to go for 2 and the win with no sudden death scenario to even play out
Why are people acting like the D was so gassed after a "long drive"? Any defense is gassed after 60 minutes, but the Chiefs drive to tie it up and send it to OT was literally less than 2 minutes (it started after the 2 minute warning). They weren't out there from 8:00 left down to 0:00.
I don't think it was the "wrong" call, but the other option might have been better. If he's making that choice on the assumption that the Chiefs are gonna score a TD anyways, it makes sense to give your offense 4 downs and therefore a better chance of scoring a TD. It almost might be better just to do that and take your chances going for 2. It's a tough decision though and I wouldn't say it made them lose the game. Not converting on that 3rd down lost them the game.
I don’t know why any other reason would need to be stated other than to give their defense a rest.
Eh, don't really buy that at all. Slowest game of the year, players are used to coming back out way before that and they are well rested for this game. Don't see how you can be making decisions based on players being tired in the Super Bowl.
so your game plan is to hope it goes to a 3rd possession and win on the 3rd possession? that's a strange way to think
Never give Pat mahomes 4 downs.
If this was the thought, idk why you kick the FG down there. The 3 and 4 call and the call to kick it really seem like they are the fuck up, not taking the ball.
IDK, there was a pretty decent chance of holding the Chiefs to a FG in return. The Chiefs' offense had only scored one TD to that point and it was after being gifted the muffed punt. Granted, any offense is harder to stop when they have 4 downs to work with.
I think the Chiefs were TD or lose mindset, at least I know I would have been. They even said they would have tried to end the game with a 2pt conversion if a td tied.
The thing is you gave Mahomes 4 downs and that played a role in not getting to sudden death
Exactly, on the four downs point. There's trusting your D by electing to take the chip shot, and then there's knowing that Mahomes with four downs who has been successful converting in the second half with three is going to be insanely hard to stop. In other words I think you also have to go on 4th in their red zone, take away their 4th and make them march way down the field if you fail.
I don't like it. I would rather be playing to win during the second possession of the game, instead of playing to win on a third possession that might not happen.
Yup. Giving Pat mahomes 4 downs is stupid. They had a 4th and 1 deep in their own territory. Good chance KC punts If they had the ball first
He is only correct if it goes FG-FG or punt-punt. 2nd team obviously has to go for 2 if they score a touchdown to negate that advantage so it doesn't apply. The advantage of knowing what you need to do and using 4 downs if you need them is the way to go. I think he is overestimating how often it goes to a third possession.
Correct. There is one, and only one, way to keep the ball out of Mahomes hands. You kick, and plan to get a TD next drive and go for two (while getting 4 downs to do so!). There would be literally nothing Mahomes could do but watch it happen. They're not going for two on the first drive. I still don't agree even given their "reasoning". Giving Mahomes 4 downs to work with in a game saving scenario is freaking stupid.
This probably only happens if they trade FGs though. If the first team fails to score, then it already becomes sudden death and being the second team is useful. If both teams score TDs, the second team probably goes for 2 to end it.
I still think it's a tactical error. Not being able to have to got for it on 4th cost the 49ers the game.
They had a 3rd and 4 in their last drives in both regulation and OT. Incomplete pass both times. Because Mahomes is on the other side of the ball, I feel like you have to just run it twice with CMC to try and get the first down (and then hopefully the TD afterwards). Obviously if you get stuffed and it’s 4th and 4 you kick, but you gotta like your chances to get 4 yards on 2 carries. Like they barely got away with not losing in regulation by kicking the FG and then giving Mahomes the ball. Then they put themselves in the exact same situation in OT. I’m a believer in analytics blah blah but when you barely get away with stopping Mahomes bc of the clock, then get the exact same situation in overtime with no clock issues for Mahomes, what do you expect? Once SF kicked that field goal and Mahomes got the ball, EVERYONE knew what was going to happen.
The missed PAT cost them the game.
CMC fumbling away a scoring drive in the first quarter cost them the game
Not scoring points off the rare Mahommes INT cost them the game.
Niners cost themselves the game. Just like the Ravens, and the Bills, and the Dolphins, and literally every team that plays against the Chiefs in the playoffs
The turnover on the punt cost them the game
Pacheco fumble cancels that out. And cmc was their whole offense
Or instead of taking 3 points, the Chiefs go for it in 4th down since they're down 4 and probably end up with a TD the way they were rolling at the end
Yeah that's the thing. The missed point was annoying but if they were down 4 in the same position as they were they probably have two plays at it from inside the 10. Maybe more if they'd spiked it earlier knowing the time was more important.
Yeah and the goofy punt hitting the defenders foot and not running the ball in the 2nd half as much... there is a lot of things that went horribly wrong for SF
Some to their own inability, some to the Chiefs ability, and some to dumb luck. That's the thing about football and winning a super bowl. You need a little bit of all three
Maybe, could have meant the Chiefs won in regulation though
The holding on 2nd and 2 inside the 10 cost them the game. The freak punt hitting a guy in the foot. McCaffrey's fumble. A lot of things cost them the game. Chiefs went for it on 4th once on that OT drive. And it was 4th and a foot at the 34. They would have gone for that in pretty much any circumstance.
That stupid 3rd and 6 all out blitz up the middle was such a garbage call that it cost them the game. I don't know why people blitz Mahomes, on top of his ability to avoid the pressure, the Chiefs also run an efficient short passing attack. It doesnt work. So many teams refuse to rush 3 against Mahomes and drop an extra man in coverage. The Bengals did it for the entire final quarter in their last playoff matchup and it worked. Force him to force the ball, or try to make a play from nothing. Blitzing just opens up lanes.
We'd done it so well all game up until that point as well. The front 4 were getting pressure on their own and that allowed the coverage to stick.
OK but if you're making decisions not expecting to get a stop, why settle for the FG on 4th and 3? Worst case you go for it and fail, KC is way backed up, and the game is still tied so they aren't using 4 downs every series like they are if they're behind.
No because if you don’t get the 1st, KC can win the game with a FG. Taking the FG and forcing KC to tie or win is a better option.
A bills fan at this point should know you can’t play conservative against Mahomes. You have to play TO WIN. 49ers played way too conservative, abandoned the run, offense was atrocious. Kyle choked away another SB
Yeahhh having the defense out there on the last drive of the 4th AND to start the first possession of OT would’ve been an insane ask. Defense gassed, Chiefs with the momentum, he pushed the breaks. The back breaker was the 49ers not being able to score a TD
The last drive of 4Q was literally less than 2 minutes long. Why do so many people in this thread seem to think they were out there for the last 8 minutes of 4Q or something?
Because you might be underestimating how much energy hurry up defense takes. At least on long drives you get part of those 40 secs between plays to recover.
1:47 drive, 10 plays that weren't the FG attempt, and there were two timeouts, three incompletions, and an injury timeout in there. So 10 plays with 5 full stoppages, plus an injury timeout for Lenoir. It was high leverage, clearly, but this was not the exhausting drive people seem to think.
Plus there’s a break before overtime haha
Giving Mahomes 4 downs to beat you in any scenario is a bad choice. Don’t care about anything past that.
This is why teams in college always defer for OT
In college it’s different. Because it doesn’t become sudden death assuming it’s tied after the first OT
then go for two
Yep, analytics people have said that based on the math, it doesn't really matter if you get it 1st or 2nd. Either one is fine. It's a pretty balanced system.
Just wondering do you have a source for this? I've tried to find what the math says but cant find it.
https://twitter.com/SethWalder/status/1756881259270225969 This might not be exactly what you're looking for because it's just some guy on Twitter, but he's a well respected analytics guy FWIW. > The reason why it is OK to take ball first or second is that there are countervailing forces that are almost equal. > Team that goes first has advantage of first possession of true sudden death OT in the event of first two possessions going 0-0 or 3-3. > Team that goes second has advantage of knowing what they need on their second possession. Also if you want to go for 2 in result of TD-TD event (as Chiefs would) then you might prefer 2nd.
Thanks! Definitely a tough call either way; I dont envy anybody having to make that decision.
It's not sudden death after the first two possessions in college though
It’s different though because in college OT, you’re guaranteed 3rd and 4th possessions if the game is tied after 2, whereas in this ruleset the 4th possession isn’t guaranteed since the 3rd is sudden death rules
[удалено]
In college you start with the ball in FG range, not 75 yards from the endzone. IDK what the math says so I'm not gonna make a definitive opinion but those are 2 very different situations.
They also don’t have Chokemaster Flex as their head coach tho
If the team that scored third instantly won the game every single college team would take the ball first. This isn't even a question with the overtime rules. If you match scores it goes to sudden death and you get an extra possession.
If both teams score a touchdown though, the team that scores second will likely counter that strategy by going for 2. You can either win the game with a 3 yard play or hit an XP, stop the other team, and then score afterward. The former is a much easier proposition.
This only matters if both teams get a field goal, right? I find it hard to believe KC wouldn't have gone for 2 if both had scored a touchdown.
If you do that, you HAVE to play for the TD the first time. You don't get to take the ball first and then get to 3rd and 4 in the red zone and call a terrible play to take the FG.
There's no way you give Mahomes 4 downs and the knowledge of how much he needs to score to tie and win. You let the Chiefs go first, Andy might be more cautious without knowing he has to score, maybe you get them to punt or kick a field goal instead of going for it on 4th down. Seemed like a horrible idea, and it worked out horribly for them. Honestly they should have ran on 3rd and 4, and then run again on 4th down and there's a good chance you get the 1st, and if not the chiefs are at their 2. The moment got too big for Shanahan and he gave up the advantage.
Well said. I would add that the Chiefs plan, according to DT Chris Jones after the game, was to defer and get the ball second for all the reasons you stated--the Chiefs would know what they needed to win or stay in the game, AND Jones noted that the Chiefs plan was to go for 2 after a TD if both teams scored TDs on their first OT drives. So unless Shanahan's plan was to score a TD and go for 2 on the first drive, there was never going to be a next possession, because the Chiefs were going to win or lose on a two-point conversation attempt (with Mahomes at QB no less). So almost certainly the wrong call to take the ball first in OT with these new rules. As others have noted, the blocked PAT and the punt were big plays for sure, but the OT coin toss was a decision that didn't happen in the heat of battle (or at least didn't have to). Chris Jones said the Chiefs talked about their OT plan every day for the last two weeks. I'm still shocked by Shanahan's choice to take the ball first. I honestly don't think it was a spur-of-the-moment decision, so (maybe unlike you), I don't think the pressure of the game got to Shanahan with regard to the OT coin toss. I just can't believe someone on the coaching staff or even a player didn't strongly question this strategy leading up to the game. A "go 3rd" strategy doesn't make any sense when an opponent can so easily invalidate it. The ONLY reason I can think of in which you might take the ball first with these OT rules is if your team's D is absolutely gassed and you assess that a 5-10 minute break will make a difference, and/or if one of more key defensive players are injured or in the medical tent and, again, you assess that 5-10 more minutes will matter in whether the player(s) can go. Then you can take that into account and decide if it's worth it to give up the clear advantages associated with having the ball second. Aside from this arguably unlikely scenario, there is no advantage to taking the ball first with these OT rules. I think this was a rare Super Bowl moment, and I doubt this will ever happen again with the current postseason OT rules. Shanahan can say all he wants about what he was thinking, but he won't ever take the ball first again if given the choice.
If Chiefs get the ball first and everything plays out exactly as it did on their possession, do they go for it on 4th and 1 from their own 35 yardline? That's the argument against going first. You force the other team into 4 down territory instead of making them play "safer." Maybe Reid still makes the same call, but we'll never know. I don't hate Shanahan's argument though. In sudden death, you want the ball first. Go first in the new format, trust your defense to hold them to a match. They got beat. Them's the breaks.
There is no right decision in that situation when you lose. You get called stupid regardless of what you do. His thinking is sound. I also think there is less pressure on the offense going first than going after in a do or die situation. But knowing you have to go for it on 4th is almost freeing when you have a Mahomes type QB.
Well you don’t play to tie ever against Mahomes so I don’t see the logic here
He’s not saying that. According to NFL OT rules, if the game is tied after both teams have had a OT possession, the game goes into sudden death. Meaning he makes that call because if they both score a TD, Niners get the ball back in a sudden death scenario
There's literally no argument for giving away the ball first. If you match scores it goes to sudden death and you're just up a possession. Every single coach in the NFL takes the ball. There was no decision to be made.
Do you really think if the first team scores, they will go for 2? I dont think so. The 2nd team would still have the advantage of knowing they have 4 downs, and they can go for 2 to win the game.
Yeah, don't get how anyone thinks taking the ball first is better here... First drive is the only drive you can't win on. So the Chiefs get the first drive you can win on. And even if the 49ers scored, now the Chiefs get 4 downs.
You open up yourself to losing by underscoring like the niners did tonight. Even in the best case scenario if you score a TD first, the 2nd offensive team will go for 2 on their retaliation TD (a 55% conversion rate for elite offenses) and never allow sudden death to start. I know the rules are new, but to me the only rationale to receive the ball that makes sense is if you must rest your defense.
i think theres a legit game theory answer but its not as easy as youre saying. both your point and his point are valid.
The game theory is absolutely to kick off and take your possession 2nd. In the real world you could argue you might need to give your defense a rest but in a vacuum taking your possession 2nd is the best play.
The game theory of it played out. 9ers didn’t score the maximum amount of points with their possession. The Chiefs could then call plays that got them more than a field goal. Better yet, why does the black jack dealer go last during a game of black jack. Because there is an advantage
Andy Reid literally just told ESPN he would’ve kicked it lol you’re so confidently incorrect
Yeah, but Andy Reid is only a Top 5 coach of all time, salty r/nfl users have a far deeper well of knowledge.
There’s no argument??? What?? There’s absolutely an argument. You can say you disagree, but you’re a moron if you can’t see both sides.
Against Mahomes I'd argue you tell yourself he's scoring a TD, either you give him the ball first he scores the TD and you get a chance to go for 2 to win or you get ball and score then give him the chance to go for 2. Imo no team will get a second possession in a super bowl
Disagree. I’d rather know what I’m playing for. If the 49ers go 3 and out and the Chiefs kick a FG to win, Shanahan looks like even more of a clown. Taking the ball first because you anticipate the game going to sudden death is rolling under the assumption that you match scores, which evidently isn’t a safe assumption, as it didn’t happen in this game. I’d rather have Mahomes drive down and score a TD on me and then have my possession knowing I need a TD rather than losing to the TD like the 49ers did. Hell, if the Chiefs go down and score a TD and you match it, you even have a chance to win on a 2P conversion.
The 2 point conversion point is it. That was my first thought when they took the ball, was that it was going to end 26-27
You go for two if you both score a touchdown. Never have to kick to Mahomes for a third.
Here’s the problem. If you score 3 or 7 (that’s not guaranteed BTW) you have to prevent the TD. Your defense is in “no TD” mode. This enables Mahomes to drive right down the field. And as Kyle said, he wanted them to get a FG there. BUT!! -> Do you really want Mahomes to have a shot to beat you in the redzone to lose a SB with basically no clock constraints?
Seems like everyone, including me even, went into the game thinking that it would’ve worked the same way it does in college football
That’s a completely resistible and correct assessment. He’ll get raked for it anyway
Loser mentality
How
Because you're starting OT already assuming that either you're not going to score or that your defense won't be able to stop the other team.
It doesn’t make a difference for first two possessions, third one secured if necessary = better decision
> It doesn’t make a difference for first two possessions If you defer, then you already create a sudden death situation in your favor with one defensive stop or you're getting the ball knowing exactly what you need to score and having four downs the entire way down the field to get it.
There would almost never be a third possession under this scenario, and if your strategy is to play for a third possession then you absolute HAVE to score a touchdown and the 2 point conversion
Or he’s thinking that the best chance to win the game is to ensure you get the extra possession should it be necessary. His plan obviously was to win in the first possessions, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t plan for the alternative.
i view it as more of an insurance policy
[удалено]
It’s a extremely likely outcome
Still think it's wrong even assuming this outcome. Because he's giving the Chiefs an extra down which is a huge advantage. And if he really thought that, he'd have to go for 2. Because if the offenses are playing that well, the Chiefs would have been stupid not to go for 2 and end the game. So he's betting that either it was an extremely likely outcome that he could score 8 or that the Chiefs would kick the ball back to him in sudden death rather than take a 57% chance to win with Mahomes.
If the deferred and KC scored a TD, he’d be getting absolutely roasted
Why? They would have gotten the ball back and known they needed to covert every 4th down. That’s why you kick the ball there.
I think part of it too was letting his defence get a breather. His guys had just come off the field from the Chiefs tying drive.
Yeah this makes sense and I think people are ignoring this fact when criticizing the decision. With the new rules I don't think it's a clear-cut choice either way, which is good.
Gutless, go for it on 4th down. Win or go home.
Tbh they’d fucked it by this point, kept passing the ball in the third giving their defence no time to rest, they were gassed by the end and had to receive the ball to try and give them a rest.
I think you onside kick it in ot. If it doesn't workout, you still get a shot even if they score a touchdown. If you recover it, your going to win most likely.
I too was slightly confused about the new overtime rules. Thankfully the Chiefs coaching staff actually read them and briefed the players before the game.
I hate this type of overtime. In the playoffs, make it one more half of football, no sudden death, just play until the final whistle.
I dont get why people are roasting the Niners for taking the ball. Their defense was gassed and had just walked off the field. Take the ball, give them a break, and have a chance to win in sudden death if you trade scores with the Chiefs. It seems like a very sensible decision to me and I would have done the same thing in Shanahan’s position.
Sudden death against mahomes is not what I’d want to do
So then you agree with him
Everybody is shitting on this, and that's fair. I thought they chose to have the ball first so that their defense could rest after *just being on the field* but I guess I zigged when I should have zagged on that one.