NFL coaches are missing the mark when it comes to their strategies in overtime games – a choice made by Sean McDermott could very well have jeopardized his position as head coach of the Buffalo Bills.
In a recent overtime clash against the Denver Broncos, McDermott’s team won the coin toss but opted to play defense first, allowing the opposing team to take the first shot at scoring. This decision proved detrimental when neither side managed to score on their initial possession, and ultimately, Denver secured victory during their third possession of overtime. While the Bills had just one offensive opportunity, the Broncos capitalized on two.
It’s crucial for coaches like McDermott to understand that, given the current overtime regulations, the smarter strategy is to receive the ball first rather than defer. Statistically speaking, although the sample size is limited, teams that took possession first in these circumstances have emerged victorious nine times, while losing seven times, with one game concluding in a tie.
Yet, many coaches still seem to disagree with this logic. For instance, Ben Johnson, head coach of the Chicago Bears, made a similar mistake during a thrilling overtime matchup against the Los Angeles Rams, choosing to defend first. The outcome was no different; the Bears lost after the Rams scored on their third possession while Chicago only had one chance.
McDermott and Johnson are not isolated cases. An analysis of the 17 games played under the current overtime rules—which stipulate that each team gets one possession and, if necessary, the next score determines the winner—reveals that teams winning the coin toss chose to defend first a staggering 12 times. This indicates that these coaches have inadvertently placed their teams at a greater risk of defeat.
Let’s take a closer look at the implications of these choices: if both teams score an equal number of points on their respective first overtime possessions, whoever scores next clinches the win. By deferring, you’re essentially putting yourself in a disadvantageous position should the game extend beyond two possessions. This is particularly critical in postseason games, where sudden death rules apply, as demonstrated in the recent weekend matches.
During the regular season, there may be a slim chance of luck if a team receives the ball second and the clock runs out before the second possession concludes, resulting in a tie. However, no sensible team would choose to kick first under the previous overtime structure, where the first team to score won the game. Historically, those who received the ball first ended up winning more often than they lost.
Yet, this is exactly what teams like Buffalo and Chicago did this past weekend. The rationale for choosing to go second seems straightforward: it allows you to gauge how the first team performs in overtime. By waiting, you can determine precisely what you need to score—a field goal, a touchdown, or perhaps even a two-point conversion.
Sometimes, this strategy pays off, such as when the Seattle Seahawks triumphed over the Rams with a two-point conversion earlier this season. However, it’s worth noting that Johnson had the option to secure a win for the Bears with a two-point conversion at the end of regulation but opted against it. This raises further questions about his choice to receive the ball second in overtime.
While I understand the logic behind preferring to go second in overtime—I once held that belief myself—my perspective shifted after a conversation with Steve Warner, a former CBS executive, who helped clarify the flaws in that reasoning. The advantage of knowing what you need to score is outweighed by the increased chances of gaining more possessions than the opposition in overtime. In fact, this season, teams that gained first possession won all three instances when overtime extended to three possessions or more.
Another significant issue with choosing to receive the ball second was starkly illustrated in Buffalo’s game. Thanks to current kickoff policies, it’s rare for teams to start within their own 20-yard line; most typically begin past the 25-yard line. In contrast, the Broncos kicked off from their 28-yard line during overtime, effectively pinning the Bills deep within their territory.
Even in instances where overtime doesn’t reach three possessions, the statistics show that the team receiving the ball first won six times, suffered seven losses, and tied once. This does not support the notion that receiving the ball second provides a substantial advantage—even in scenarios limited to two possessions, this supposed benefit likely diminishes as overtime progresses.
Ultimately, the takeaway here is clear: teams ought to prioritize taking the ball first in overtime, rather than deferring. It will be interesting to see whether coaches adjust their strategies moving forward, as failure to do so may lead to more job losses in the future.
What do you think? Is it time for NFL coaches to rethink their approach to overtime strategies? Share your thoughts and insights in the comments!
