2022-2023 NFL Thread

[Darththeo]

I am still completely on the other side. I would always choose to defer here. Are you choosing to go first because you think on average you will end up with more drives, and thus more chances to score? Because that is really the only advantage going first has that I can see.

Whereas second in their first drive again has the option to match using 4 downs. Also if they both score a TD on drive 1, they can go for 2 which at a 50/50 is better then the chance for team 1 to score on the next drive. Frankly I also feel if team 1 scores a field goal first, team 2 really has a greenlight to be pretty aggressive going for a TD to just win outright.

After 2 drives, there are 27 possible outcomes (technically, there are more, but a 1 point safety has never happened in the NFL and there only been 1 2 point extra point return). Of those outcomes, 15 result in the team that went first winning, 7 result in the second team winning, and 5 result in going to sudden death.

[xskarma]

After 2 drives, there are 27 possible outcomes (technically, there are more, but a 1 point safety has never happened in the NFL and there only been 1 2 point extra point return). Of those outcomes, 15 result in the team that went first winning, 7 result in the second team winning, and 5 result in going to sudden death.

And remember, if it goes to sudden death, then Team 1 has the ball again and only needs a FG, i.e. it's now even easier for them to put the game away then it was on their first drive.

At SOME point Team 2 will have to get a defensive stop or they will just always lose, just like before. Which brings us back to MY favorite overtime subject: Play some damn defense!

[Faltemer]

After 2 drives, there are 27 possible outcomes (technically, there are more, but a 1 point safety has never happened in the NFL and there only been 1 2 point extra point return). Of those outcomes, 15 result in the team that went first winning, 7 result in the second team winning, and 5 result in going to sudden death.

Right... but they aren't all equally likely. The amount of ways a team wins isn't as important as their actual chance to win.

- - - Updated - - -

At SOME point Team 2 will have to get a defensive stop or they will just always lose, just like before. Which brings us back to MY favorite overtime subject: Play some damn defense!

Team 2 could let Team 1 score (Or just fail to stop them), and give up an extra point. Then go score a TD themselves and get a 2 point conversion. They win without ever stopping Team 1.

[Darththeo]

Right... but they aren't all equally likely. The amount of ways a team wins isn't as important as their actual chance to win.

Correct. Team 1 win scenarios are more likely to happen.

If team 1 scores, the best chance of the losing the next drive is 40% ... assuming best Drive to TD and they got a FG.
If team 1 gets a TD and extra point, their chance of losing is 20% ... assuming best drive to TD opponent.

In both cases, there is 50% chance or greater to win.

The best way for team 2 to win, is to not let Team 1 score at all. Which is true in both the current system and the old one.

Here are all the possible outcomes after 2 drives. (Black means cannot happen, Red means Sudden Death, Blue means team 1 wins, and Green means Team 2 wins. The darker shade means extremely unlikely to occur but not impossible. No one is kicking a FG if they are down by more than 3 points, but it technically can happen. NS = No score, DS = Defense Scored)

[Faltemer]

snip

Why cant the D score on drive 1? Obviously team 2 will never kick a field goal to lose a game, and linking that as an option is just silly. Why list D scoring 3 ways, if the defense scores the game is over automatically. They dont have to go for 1 or 2.

This is what that graph is supposed to look like:

[Darththeo]

Why cant the D score on drive 1? Obviously team 2 will never kick a field goal to lose a game, and linking that as an option is just silly. Why list D scoring 3 ways, if the defense scores the game is over automatically. They dont have to go for 1 or 2.

This is what that graph is supposed to look like:

Because Team 2 can't get a TD or FG following a DEFENSIVE SCORE.

Therefore, I highlighted NS for Drive 2 because Drive 2 DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Secondly, I listed all POSSIBLE outcomes after 2 drives, not all LIKELY outcomes. Near Zero is not Zero, we can treat it as zero, but it could happen in some game down the line. Black means Rules do not allow to happen, not just will not happen because the coach chooses not to do it.

Thirdly, TD+2 is possible for Drive 2 after Drive 1 ending in a TD depending on whether or status of kicker for Team 2. I am literally arguing this isn't fairer, and you are making the argument that it better to be Team 2 and you give Team 2 4 impossible outcomes as possible and yet ignore one that is?

[Faltemer]

Bruce Arians is retiring from coaching and moving to the Buccaneers’ front office, as @peter_king reported.

Todd Bowles takes over as HC.

[Darththeo]

Bruce Arians is retiring from coaching and moving to the Buccaneers’ front office, as @peter_king reported.

Todd Bowles takes over as HC.

Weird. I did not see that happening, but honestly, could work out.

[ProphetFlume]

Honestly, to me, this just feels like pandering to the fans and players. So they "feel" their team had a chance to win and it wasn't just decided by a coin toss.

So they’re making a change in a spectator sport to make it more enjoyable for the fans and players. And this is bad? I thought the goal of watching a game was to be entertained. Feelings are the basis for watching anything.

[Kyanion]

So they’re making a change in a spectator sport to make it more enjoyable for the fans and players. And this is bad? I thought the goal of watching a game was to be entertained. Feelings are the basis for watching anything.

Pretty much. The perception was that a playoff overtime game ending after a coin toss and one team scoring sucked ass. So it is being worked on. I call that a win.

[Logwyn]

Correct. Team 1 win scenarios are more likely to happen.

If team 1 scores, the best chance of the losing the next drive is 40% ... assuming best Drive to TD and they got a FG.
If team 1 gets a TD and extra point, their chance of losing is 20% ... assuming best drive to TD opponent.

In both cases, there is 50% chance or greater to win.

The best way for team 2 to win, is to not let Team 1 score at all. Which is true in both the current system and the old one.

Here are all the possible outcomes after 2 drives. (Black means cannot happen, Red means Sudden Death, Blue means team 1 wins, and Green means Team 2 wins. The darker shade means extremely unlikely to occur but not impossible. No one is kicking a FG if they are down by more than 3 points, but it technically can happen. NS = No score, DS = Defense Scored)

Where are the safeties? What about a defensive return of a 2 pt conversion?

[Darththeo]

So they’re making a change in a spectator sport to make it more enjoyable for the fans and players. And this is bad? I thought the goal of watching a game was to be entertained. Feelings are the basis for watching anything.

It isn't bad. It also doesn't solve the issue they claim it does.

It is an illusion. This is the same reaction when they changed it from sudden death OT. People felt "Oh, this is fairer." And now people are saying it is unfair.

I feel it is just kicking the can down the road to avoid having a college style overtime or just playing a full additional quarter.

I personally would want either of the following.
1) Full additional period of OT, unless the team that possesses the football is up by at least 9 points.
2) Each team switches off having 1st and goal from the 20. And each team will get the ball a certain numbers of times.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are the safeties? What about a defensive return of a 2 pt conversion?

Safety is a Defensive Score. The Defense scoring a Safety or return Touchdown are all the same thing, it makes no difference beside giving 1 additional outcome to Team 2 and 7 more to team 1. I thought that was a little much given it is Tomato Tamato.
And defensive return of a 2 point attempt is TD Def+2.

If the defense returns failed 2 point attempted or a blocked extra point, it is Def +2 points. After Team 1 scores a Touchdown, the rules allow 5 possible outcomes after the TD: 2 extra points (TD+2), 1 extra point (TD+1), No Points (TD), 1 point safety for Defense (TD Def+1), or a 2 Point return for Defense (TD Def+2).

[ProphetFlume]

It is an illusion. This is the same reaction when they changed it from sudden death OT. People felt "Oh, this is fairer." And now people are saying it is unfair.

I’ve never once seen anyone satisfied with the change from any points ending OT to a TD ending OT — i certainly wasn’t. It was always a half measure, acceptable because it was better than no change but it never “felt” fair or like a permanently satisfactory fix.

[Darththeo]

I’ve never once seen anyone satisfied with the change from any points ending OT to a TD ending OT — i certainly wasn’t. It was always a half measure, acceptable because it was better than no change but it never “felt” fair or like a permanently satisfactory fix.

And I never met anyone who didn't who didn't already dislike that sudden death still existed in the OT.

Even then, this isn't a point my argument actually hinges on.

So regardless, this fix is not going to be found satisfactory once people see the team that wins the coin toss still wins more times than they lose.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

Bruce Arians is retiring from coaching and moving to the Buccaneers’ front office, as @peter_king reported.

Todd Bowles takes over as HC.

Honestly unique. He's moving into the front office because Tom Brady is back so Bowles won't inherit a team that's caught in transition. And apparently the reason this didn't happen sooner is because they needed clarification on the Rooney Rule (openings made after March 1st are not subject to it because most coaches are under contract by then) before making the move.

Certainly though if you want Bowles to succeed you'll still need to find a Brady successor in these next two years.

[Faltemer]

2) Each team switches off having 1st and goal from the 20. And each team will get the ball a certain numbers of times.

This was sort of my idea.

Both teams get to go from 1st and goal from the 10. Scoring is only worth 1 point and you don’t go for any points afterwards. (This is for fantasy/recordbook reasons)

If one team scores and the other team doesn’t, they win.
If neither team scores, they replay from the same distance.
If both teams score they move back 10 yards. It stays 1st and goal no matter how far it is moved back.

Repeat this until one team wins. Less field is used so hopefully it means less wear and tear. There is no advantage to going first or second. It should be high level of excitement too.

[draynay]

Darththeo: I've seen reputed names on analytics twitter make this same argument and people are still REALLY in their feels about this.

The rule change is all about feels, it feels bad when they lose and never get the ball, now they will have to find the next thing to complain about.

[ProphetFlume]

I personally would want either of the following.
1) Full additional period of OT, unless the team that possesses the football is up by at least 9 points.
2) Each team switches off having 1st and goal from the 20. And each team will get the ball a certain numbers of times.

I’d be down for those. I thought your point was that changing out at all was dumb. The second is kind of the college ot, isn’t it?

[Tech614]

So they’re making a change in a spectator sport to make it more enjoyable for the fans and players. And this is bad? I thought the goal of watching a game was to be entertained. Feelings are the basis for watching anything.

If they want to make it "fair" then you switch to a college style system with some changes or make them play a full quarter. Hell even a full quarter gives a decided benefit to the toss winner but not as much as this new one which does nothing.

Extending the game with no statistical effect from doing so is just forcing players to play longer for the sake of it, and pretty damn stupid. The coin toss is still just as powerful in this new system it accomplished essentially nothing.

Wait for the first player to get injured during this bonus time, while the toss winner still wins the game cause it will happen and it will be a shame.

[eschatological]

And I imagine no team will go for 2 in that case at all. Even though statistically, going for 2 nets more average points than the near auto one point (0.988 vs 0.941), teams rarely go for 2 under any circumstances. Teams that do it will likely to it for the thrill that they win.

The best drive to TD percentage was 40% last year. So if the best TD scoring offense goes second after a TD, there is about a 60% chance the game ends without them scoring, even if we are favorable and say it is 50/50 they score. If they go for 2, there is about a 50/50 chance they make it. So, 75% odds of losing for the best TD scoring offenses. But, not all teams can be the best, so the actual odds will swing another way. The worse TD to drive offense to make the playoff was making it at less than 1 in 5 drives, meaning 80% chance they don't score. And in the 20% odds they do, it 50/50.

None of your analyses matter if you don't account for the TD ratio% of the first team as well, and the advantage of the knowledge the second team gets. Also, the team 2 matching team 1's TD should always go for two, because it's the best advantage they have, which they lose if they kick the XP and let it get to sudden death.

Darththeo: I've seen reputed names on analytics twitter make this same argument and people are still REALLY in their feels about this. We just have to wait like 5 years for there to be ample sampe size for what you say and people realize they have been duped by narrative, yet again.

I'm sure we will revisit this subject again when teams lose in OT. It's just never ending.

Weird, the analysis I've read says the opposite:
https://twitter.com/bburkeESPN/statu...66423872471045

This is what the Twitter thread says for those who don't care for clicking on links:
"I simulated the NFL's new rules for postseason OT. Are they fair? Would a team prefer possession first or second? Should the team with possession second kick an XP or go for 2?...

Yes, these rules are fair. This is the fairest of any of the overtime rules we've seen. The team with 1st possession wins 50.29% of the time, assuming the team with 2nd possession doesn't go for 2 if they match a TD. And yes, that precision is needed because...

If the team with 2nd possession goes for 2 subsequent to matching a TD, the team with 1st possession wins 50.19% of the time. Very slight difference.

Bottom line, based on these results, you'd want 1st possession and you'd want to go for 2 on a 2nd possession TD. But the...

...differences are so slight it would take eons of seasons to actually observe the advantage. I ran 120k sims for each strategy.

Some thoughts...

There are countervailing advantages for each team. The 1st possession team will have 1 extra drive any time there are an odd number of possessions.

The 2nd possession team has a second-mover advantage in that it knows what is needed to survive on its initial drive. And...

...it can mitigate the 1st possession team's first-mover advantage by going for 2, but this effect is tiny.

The sim isn't perfect, but it does a very good job of matching actual game win probabilities. And it's especially useful for questions like this where this is no empirical examples on which to train a model.

There might be enough bias in the sim that these results are wrong, but the error would be so slight and we're so close to the point of indifference, it might just be smart to go with the wind and let the opponent decide on possession.

Lastly, I'm not claiming this settles the question. It's just one preliminary model. FWIW, the same model gives the old sudden death rules a 57% advantage to 1st possession. And it gives a 53% adv under the last OT rule. If anything it might be underselling 1st-poss a tiny bit."