Going second in OT

[TecnoGenius]

I think it was last year (and I think it was) StatsJunkie showed a little study he did on winning the toss in OT, in other words going second, because that's what every single toss winner always chooses.  He showed that, contrary to popular belief, the team going first wins more often than not.  We were all shocked.

So here we are again.  We lost the OT toss to BC and they went second and we won.  Ok great, but we don't want to relitigate that thread, right?  But I have a new twist that I think needs to change "the book" that all CFL HC's use...

When you've recently driven the field, and gotten most of the momentum, and won ToP in the 2nd H, and have the opposing D on its back foot, I think you should opt to go first if you win the toss.  And since the other team will pick you to go first if they win the toss, it doesn't matter what the toss is, you get to go first.  Even if just a couple of those things listed above happen, you should still go first.

The reason is late game momentum and morale is such a huge part of the game.  That is why teams getting steamrolled late in the game try to slow things down: fake injuries, take timeouts, pay the stadium guy to turn off the lights for 15 mins (NFL lookin' at you)... Just look at BC: their D was gassed on our last series and 1 pass attempt later they are told to go back out there?  Why not give them a 5 min breather?  But no, Rick sent them all out to get slaughtered.

(Likewise, if those bad things just happened to you, and you win the toss, you should opt to go first so your D can get a breather and regroup and plan.)

Junkie has already proven in general going first is the statistically weaker option (but no HC listened).  But add in the above factor, if present in a game, and I think you have to change the way you approach OT.  The "book" needs to be rewritten for such cases.

[Blue In BC]

Fair point but just because it worked out doesn't mean much. Bombers were definitely playing better on defence than the Lions in the 2nd half. Adams only had about 100 yards in the 2nd half and we sacked and pressured him a lot. Of his 100 yards, 65 came on the last regulation time play. Good thing the clock ran out.  So he was going to have problems in OT and he did.

[kronic]

The ONLY reason I would EVER consider going first would be if one of the defences is completely worn down. If it?s their?s, take advantage. If it?s ours, give them a rest. Otherwise, regardless of the stats, going second is always the better choice. There?s a reason why the coaches always choose to go second. This is a case where the stats are an anomaly.

[theaardvark]

Scoring and getting a 2 point first means the D can pin back the ears and come get 'em. 

Not scoring means a completely different defence.

I think our team is designed for going first...

But I get how "Knowing what you need to score" dynamically changes the game.

But I really like what they did this game.  BC's D was gassed and we pounced on that.

[Stats Junkie]

It is Derek Taylor who has all the details about going first in OT. He was all over it again last night on Twitter.

[TecnoGenius]

But I get how "Knowing what you need to score" dynamically changes the game.

Like I said last time the topic came up, I think going second puts extraordinarily enormous pressure on the QB who has to go second if the first O gets a TD or a TD+2PT.  Whatever pressure a QB who goes first has, double it for the QB who goes second who can't just get a FG.

Did you see VAJ before he came on and while he was in the huddle?  He was already falling to pieces.  He's a squirrelly little guy at the best of times, doing his breathing exercises to pretend he's calming down, but in these high-pressure situations he cracks.

I think the only real, tangible, benefit to going second is you can play 3 down ball if you need a TD.  50% more tries to get the first down is nothing to scoff at.  But often that 3rd down is wasted on a pure desperation play.

I also think knowing you need a TD and 2PT just to tie messes with your head.  You know that no matter what you do, you can't win: the best you achieve is going to another round.  That's gotta play with your headspace.

This OT reminded me a bit of the '21 GC OT where we got the TD+2PT when we "lost" the toss.  Masoli handled the pressure a lot better than VAJ, but same result in the end.  I'll always remember the moment right before the 2PT when Simoni got an iso camera on him and he suddenly realized they were going to lose.

[TecnoGenius]

It is Derek Taylor who has all the details about going first in OT. He was all over it again last night on Twitter.

I have a funny feeling that DT and I would get along famously.  That's slightly disconcerting in some ways 

Here's another question: has any CFL team in recent memory opted to go 1st in OT?  I don't recall any.

[Cool Spot]

It is Derek Taylor who has all the details about going first in OT. He was all over it again last night on Twitter.

On the post-game show, the announcers were saying that since the CFL started with the shoot-out format for OT, the team going first wins 35 times against 21 losses, which is a win % of 62.5%. Mike O'Shea was undeterred, saying he would definitely always go second, and when presented with those numbers replied that he'd have to see the unique circumstances of those games (presumably to explain why the "advantage" of going second doesn't work out 62.5% of the time).

[Cool Spot]

One explanation of going second is that you "know what you have to do." This is pretty ambiguous, so I think what this means is you know whether or not you need to play 3-down football, and if so, that extra down is an advantage. I don't think this is an advantage. If you go second, there's five scenarios in the CFL:

1. The other team failed to score (i.e., a turnover or missed FG that was run out of the endzone or hit the upright - If so, you can play conservative and rely upon your kicker to get you a game-winning FG. You don't need to play 3-down football.

2. The other team got a single point (i.e., missed FG not run out of endzone, or other way to score a rouge - Same as above. If so, you can play conservative, play 2-down football (or gamble on 3rd and short if that floats your boat), and rely on your FG kicker to win.

3. The other team got a FG for 3-points - Again, you don't need to play 3-down football. You can play how you want to play, knowing you can fallback to your FG kicker if your offense fails to score a TD.

4. The other team scored a TD and got the 2-pt convert - Here, you really do need to play 3-down football. But, you're playing from a position of weakness because if you don't execute, you lose. Why would you want to play from behind when you can't get another chance? The best you can do is tie the game.

5. The other team scored a TD, but failed on the 2-pt convert attempt - Once again, unless your team executes and scores a TD, you've lost. There is no fallback option. If you do score a TD, then you're in a position to win the game. But again, the assertion of "you know what you have to do" is the same whether you go first and score a TD, or go second a score a TD - you need to convert on the 2-pt attempt. And, if you go second, you have a chance to win but you don't have to convert. If you fail, there's another chance to win in the subsequent OT shoot-out.

So, while others may see it differently, I don't really see the advantage of going second with respect to having another down to play, since you'd only have to take advantage of that extra down when in a position of weakness (the same way you'd play 3-down football with a minute left in the game but down by a TD. Which of those two options is better? Relying upon your defense to stop the other team when you're ahead, or requiring your offense to score a TD when you're behind?).

[Pete]

actually knowing you just have to kick a fg or single point to win is a big advantage, in that you don't have to run extra plays which could result in fumble or an interception. Its not just that you know you have to go 3 downs or not.

Common sense says going 2nd is the smart play but who knows the psychology of it. If the other team scores a fg maybe you are playing more conservative resulting a second round. Or if the first team gets a td does it add to the pressure.
Certainly if your team was successful in scoring a td it gives you defense a added dose of positive adrenaline

Having said that I do agree with the earlier post that if the opposing defense is gassed then don't give them a chance to rest, if we had won the coin toss it would have been a gutsy decision to go first

[TecnoGenius]

Having said that I do agree with the earlier post that if the opposing defense is gassed then don't give them a chance to rest, if we had won the coin toss it would have been a gutsy decision to go first

Right, and so many OT's are a result of just that: a team making last ditch efforts to come back while the opponent is on their heels.  Look at when OTT beat us in OT.  They crawled all the way back in it and our D had no answers and were pretty tired, then OTT ties it and into OT we go.

If the number is 62% for going first, then everyone's book is wrong.  Period.  The sample size is large enough to be meaningful and take into account all factors.  So even if MOS wants to be stubborn and stick to "going last", If your D is gassed and you win the toss you should make an exception and go first.  And in other scenarios, too.  All possibilities need to be pored over and a new book written where sometimes you follow the stats and common sense.

Simple question: after we got that TD+2PT, how many of you knew we won?  I did.  I knew for a fact there was no way VAJ et al were going to match that.  And the entire BC O was thinking the exact same thing.  Maybe BC could have used Kahari on the sidelines doing his boxing moves to motivate them.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

I think it was last year (and I think it was) StatsJunkie showed a little study he did on winning the toss in OT, in other words going second, because that's what every single toss winner always chooses.  He showed that, contrary to popular belief, the team going first wins more often than not.  We were all shocked.

So here we are again.  We lost the OT toss to BC and they went second and we won.  Ok great, but we don't want to relitigate that thread, right?  But I have a new twist that I think needs to change "the book" that all CFL HC's use...

When you've recently driven the field, and gotten most of the momentum, and won ToP in the 2nd H, and have the opposing D on its back foot, I think you should opt to go first if you win the toss.  And since the other team will pick you to go first if they win the toss, it doesn't matter what the toss is, you get to go first.  Even if just a couple of those things listed above happen, you should still go first.

The reason is late game momentum and morale is such a huge part of the game.  That is why teams getting steamrolled late in the game try to slow things down: fake injuries, take timeouts, pay the stadium guy to turn off the lights for 15 mins (NFL lookin' at you)... Just look at BC: their D was gassed on our last series and 1 pass attempt later they are told to go back out there?  Why not give them a 5 min breather?  But no, Rick sent them all out to get slaughtered.

(Likewise, if those bad things just happened to you, and you win the toss, you should opt to go first so your D can get a breather and regroup and plan.)

Junkie has already proven in general going first is the statistically weaker option (but no HC listened).  But add in the above factor, if present in a game, and I think you have to change the way you approach OT.  The "book" needs to be rewritten for such cases.

Agree with you on the momentum shift the Bombers had as the BC Defence was gassed.    TSN commentators even mentioned it when I watched the replay.    So when we were given the chance to go first I was thinking the same thing......we had all the momentum going our way.

Ironically when we beat the Cats in double OT in 2021, they nearly iced the game albeit for Nicholls getting a finger tip on the ball at the goal line.   Had he not they would have won the Cup right there so they were forced to go for the tie.    Yet we still came out on top....so there's that.