BBQ vs. Sourdough: Super Bowl LVIII thread

And my point is that it's highly improbable the game ever gets to a third possession. If both teams score a touchdown, the second team is very likely going for two. And if the first team gets a field goal, I'm not sure if the second team doesn't go full Dan Campbell and try to get the ball in the end zone either way.

The second team has the result of the game in their hands and they aren't giving that advantage up. So strategizing for the third possession of OT seems shortsighted.

 

That would seem to be the case.

Even if your two-point odds are less then 50-50, they're better than being on defense in sudden death.

The only "postseason OT rule" should be that the game cannot end in a tie. I hate manufactured rules ("clock rules change under 2 minutes, etc.").

 

This is around where I am on this. The 49ers gave up a walkoff anyway. So the third possession is moot. Why not know what you have to do accomplish, and even have that chance to go for the win? As someone else here said, have every down and every option on the field at play. If you give up nothing, you can win on a field goal. I think it puts less pressure on the defense too.

 

But if the second team is held to a FG (after the first team's FG), then the first team has the ball in sudden death. And that third possession is very real.

It's not so cut and dried. There are serious pros and cons to either decision.

 

I’m fascinated by the certainty both ways of what strategy should have been chosen in a scenario that went from zero data points to one in the last 24 hours.

 

Last minute drives are no more commonplace than they used to be if the regular season stats mean anything. IMO defenses are more prone to exhaustion (both teams gassed last night) down the stretch of Super Bowls because the amount of adrenaline generated at the start of the game is so intense that it gives an extra draining factor by game's end. Offenses are drilled to control adrenaline. Defenses are by and large encouraged to let theirs out. "Set the tone." "Be physical" "Fly to the ball." That takes a toll, because as all humans experience, the aftermath of a major adrenaline hit is fatigue.

 

I think the better option is to kick, but there is an advantage to taking the ball. I was just explaining the logic.

Regarding going for two if your team scores second, would you really feel good putting the Super Bowl on one play? Both teams were moving the ball well by the end, but they also blew some plays up last night. I agree that it would be the best option at that point, but I certainly wouldn't have felt comfortable with it.

 

Except it was Lady Gaga. Maroon 5 was Patriots-LA Rams.

 

Which was played in the ATL.

 

Agreed. I find no discernible change in league-wide stats over the past 20 years.
The totals for plays per game and plays per fourth quarter are virtually the same in 2023 as they were in 1994.

 

Yes. I thought you were referring to the Falcons' SB (28-3)

 

I can't imagine it happening in the Super Bowl, it seems like it barely does in the regular season, but the possibility exists and at least you control that decision rather than risking a whole other possession. What do the analytics say!?