Sean McDermott’s final big decision as the Buffalo Bills’ head coach was the wrong one – and it may have cost him his job.
McDermott’s Bills won the coin toss in Saturday’s overtime period against the Denver Broncos and decided to go on defense first and offense second.
It backfired when neither team scored on their first possession, and Denver scored in the third possession of the overtime. The Broncos had two possessions on offense, while the Bills had only one.
Ad Feedback
Coaches like McDermott need to learn that under the new overtime rules the logical decision is to receive first, not second.
More than that, in an admittedly limited sample size, going on offense first is the statistically correct one. Teams that have gotten the ball first under these overtime rules have won nine times, lost seven and one game ended in a tie.
Yet, coaches seem to disagree.
Chicago Bears head coach Ben Johnson made the same choice of going on defense in Sunday’s overtime thriller against the Los Angeles Rams. The Bears lost when the Rams scored on the third possession of overtime; Chicago had just one possession to Los Angeles’ two.
McDermott and Johnson are not alone in this – I looked at the 17 games played under current NFL rules (each team gets one possession and, if the game is still tied, then next score wins). Of those 17 instances, the team that won the toss decided to go on defense first 12 times. That is, coaches were putting their team in a position to lose.
Look at the rules again and consider the following: Let’s say each team scores the same amount of points on their first overtime possession.
Then it becomes whoever scores first wins. If you decide to kick first, you’re putting yourself at a massive disadvantage if the game lasts beyond two possessions.
It’s sudden death in the postseason like we saw on Saturday and Sunday.
In the regular season, maybe you get lucky if you receive second and the clock runs out after the second possession of the 10-minute overtime period (ties can happen in the regular season).
No team, however, in their right mind would choose to kick first under the old overtime rules, where the first score won the game. Teams that got the ball first won more often than they lost under those rules.
Yet, kicking first is exactly what teams like Buffalo and Chicago did this weekend.
The logical argument of going second is simple: You want to see what the team that gets the ball first does in overtime. If you go second, you know what you need to win (i.e. a field goal, a touchdown, a touchdown and two-point conversion, etc.).
Sometimes, it does work out (e.g. the Seattle Seahawks beating the Rams on a two-point conversion in overtime earlier this year).
Notably, Johnson could have had his Bears go for the win on a two-point conversion at the end of regulation and chose not to, which really makes his decision to take the ball second in overtime even more puzzling.
Still, I get the viewpoint of going second in the OT. I once held that viewpoint, until my friend and former CBS executive Steve Warner pointed out the fallacy of that line of thought.
This advantage of knowing what you need to score is more than offset by the chance to get more possessions in overtime than the other team. Consider that the team that got the ball first won all three times this season when the OT went to three possessions or more.
Another big problem with getting it second was very well evidenced in Buffalo’s game. Under the current kickoff rules, teams rarely, if ever, start with the ball inside their own 20 yard line. Often, they’re past their 25 yard-line – the Broncos started at their 28 yard-line in overtime.
Punting, on the other hand, has gotten really good. The Broncos were able to pin the Bills back inside their own 10 yard-line.
Of course, most times under the current overtime rules, the overtime didn’t go to three possessions – the game was decided on the second.
Even then though, the team that got the ball first won six times, lost seven times and tied once.
This doesn’t suggest that getting the ball second is some massive advantage even if the OT goes just two possessions, and it is likely overcome when the OT goes beyond two possessions.
The bottom line is this: Teams should be taking the ball first in overtime, not second.
We’ll see if coaches adjust. Otherwise, it could cost more of them their jobs.