On the first possession a TD wins it, thereafter any score that doesn't tie the game ends it, alternatively a change of possession when the scores aren't level ends it.
if both teams get fgs on their opening possesions, then it sudden death and the next score wins. also if the first team fails to score on its opening possesion, it is then sudden death.
Punting from 25 yard line even if its 4th and GOAL is a healthy recipe for a disaster. Say the "pooch punt" somehow ends up in the end zone and Indy gets the ball at the 20. They are about 45 yards away from a victory. They don't need a TD to win anymore. Even if we push them back to around 5 yard line, they still have a better chance of winning simply because they have the ball in what would now become a sudden death game. When the game is in sudden death mode, you don't want to be on defense no matter what the situation is. If we follow my theory, we kick a FG if we are at the 25 yard line. Now it becomes a do or die situation for Indy. They MUST score to keep the game alive. Can they put up an 80 yard TD drive if we stop them around the 20 yard on the kickoff? They can obviously, but chances of Indy doing it on the first posession in OT wouldn't be 100%. They might be able to kick the FG, they might miss it. There are so many things that have to go right in order for Indy to win after we kick a FG. Say we miss the FG when we are around 25, giving the ball up to Indy around the 32. Since its sudden death mode now, Indy would have the better chances of winning simply cuz they are driving. What are the chances of missing a 40 yard FG? I would say less than 20% (Folk should make that kick more than 80% of the time). I like the odds, I kick the FG. A 50 yarder would be where you might wanna punt and thats where Weatherford's punting becomes invaluable. We would not be in a great position to kick the FG, so try and backing up the Colts inside the 10 and hope for a quick 3 and out like you mentioned (you won't see too many 3 n outs against Manning).
You can't have lead late in an OT game. The only wat that would be possible is if Jets went ahead and had like a 12 minute drive for a FG on the opening drive. If Jets kick a FG, Indy MUST score. A FG would mean a tie ball game heading into sudden death mode like in soccer. A TD for Indy would mean victory for them. No points for Indy means loss.
I think you are missing the original posters point. If you give Peyton 4 downs, every time he will March down the field guaranteed. If we kick that FG they will be forced to go for it every time on 4th. If we do not score then most likely the team will punt the ball back on 4th. The original poster has a valid point and I do not think there is one right answer. In some regards I agree - but it could be playing with fire. I think each game is unique so depending on the D and the QB's, I do ot think that there can be one clear cut - right way to approach it. If you are a really solid defensive team (not Jets, maybe Ravens) do you kick off if you win the OT toss? I personally do not like this new rule and have said all along that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the old sudden death.
Why would Indy go for it on 4th down if we missed the FG (assuming thats what you meant by giving away the ball around 25-35)?. Or did u mean we score a FG and stop the kick off return around 25-35? If we missed the FG, Indy will not go for it on 4th (and 2+) since they don't HAVE to score to keep the game alive. Difference of opinion here. I prefer to have our offense out there in sudden death mode even if its inside our 10 yard line. One quick little slant can put us beyond our 20 yard line. Same for Indy. One back coverage by Coleman and Manning can put his team in great position to win. With option 1, we force Manning to score. I know he'll get 4 downs to get first downs until he reaches the FG range, but the offense is under much more pressure on 4th downs than the defence. Again, difference of opinion, but having Weatherford is always a nice option. How he missed the pro bowl is beyond me. Him alone gave us two safeties, and so many 3 and outs.
My last paragraph in the previous post "We force Manning to score. I know he'll get 4 downs to get first downs until he reaches the FG range, but the offense is under much more pressure on 4th downs than the defence." Like I said, Indy would now be forced to score. Yeah, Indy gets 4 downs, but they must score. I like the team leading in OT in any scenario. Even if Indy was at the Jets 15 yard line down by 3, needing a FG to keep the game alive on 4th and 1, I'd pick the Jets. Indy could miss the FG (blocked, bad snap, hitting upright etc). If Indy doesn't opt for the FG, and incompletion wins or stuffing the runner wins the game. I will always take the Jets to win if they scored a FG on their opening drive.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing - I am just saying I see the validity of both points of view (except for the 4 and goal on the 17 - then you have to kick the FG) I do say that against a QB like Manning or Brady - opposed to your point of view I highlighted in red - I would say we would lose that game more often then win if we score a FG on the first drive. The vast majority swings the other way but not against those two. I just really hope that we do not have to be subjected to this nonsense in a Jets playoff game.
From a NY Times article back in March- Jets Coach Rex Ryan said early Tuesday that he was opposed to the change and suspected that most defensive coaches preferred it remain the old way. But by the end of the day, he had changed his mind, and said most coaches felt better about the change after the details were explained during two days of meetings. “I may kick off,” Ryan said, suggesting that even if the Jets won the coin toss, he might put his defense on the field first. “It depends on who you’re playing, but that is something I would consider. We don’t think you’re scoring, anyway.” Of course, if the Jets’ opponent scored a touchdown on its opening drive, the Jets would never touch the ball. “What are the odds of that?” Ryan said, with a smile.
