posted by Laley23

You can’t look at analytics after the fact. They went 3 times. They got 0 TD (but long fields vs Chiefs helping D also). If they kick 3 FGs that’s 9 pts. Honestly… big deal when the return value could’ve been 21 which is a plus 12. Even going 1/3 which I think is reasonable expectations for the situations is a -2 bet return. They were ALL the right call. FGs are how you lose. 

We disagree.

Piss poor clock management 

Man I’m rooting for a long GW FG

Kelce or Hill will be open

I agree with all the kick or go for it decisions on 4th down that both teams made.,

Execution not too good on some plays like Mahomes and the non QB throw bad passes nose down into the ground on critical downs.  A fun game to watch.

Kelce with a UC celebration. Nice. 

Ha ha

I’ve not watched very many games where I could say this…..but the officiating was excellent

Hope they miss the playoffs

Man Mahomes missed a lot of throws tonight….in great conditions. Chargers let them off the hook

posted by Ironman92

We disagree.

I mean, that’s fine. I was actually off. Forgot they got a TD on one. Do you have anything other than gut or eye test to go off of though? It’s very easy to be critical when the plays don’t work, and act like the missed 3 points cost them a game like it would play out the same.

They came out a -2 on the night. If you would seriously settle for 9 points when the alternative is potentially 21 I think you’re nuts. And that’s not counting the possession with the fumble which would be 12/28 depending on what they did. And if they converted that 4th and goal, they come out a net +2 (14 to 12). I just don’t see how it’s a debate, but whatever.

Thinking the game plays out the same is stupid. Do they get that INT if Chiefs aren’t backed up? So that’s an instance where the failed 4th had the flip side benefit to a long field. 

posted by Laley23

I mean, that’s fine. I was actually off. Forgot they got a TD on one. Do you have anything other than gut or eye test to go off of though? It’s very easy to be critical when the plays don’t work, and act like the missed 3 points cost them a game like it would play out the same.

They came out a -2 on the night. If you would seriously settle for 9 points when the alternative is potentially 21 I think you’re nuts. And that’s not counting the possession with the fumble which would be 12/28 depending on what they did. And if they converted that 4th and goal, they come out a net +2 (14 to 12). I just don’t see how it’s a debate, but whatever.

Thinking the game plays out the same is stupid. Do they get that INT if Chiefs aren’t backed up? So that’s an instance where the failed 4th had the flip side benefit to a long field. 

Yeah I do…I’m just not screaming from the rooftops. The last 6 games the Chiefs have given up 17 or fewer points….the last 3 games allowed under 10 each. This isn’t the Big 12 defense. 4th and 5 you go for it to start the game when you know nothing about how the game will play out as there are 57 minutes left, might win by 40 might lose by 40. Take the 3 and get the initial edge. 4th and 1, fine go if you want, 4th and 1 after struggling in short plays, kick the 45 yard FG to make 17-10.

Then in the 4th with about 9-10 min left they score a TD to go up 20-13, then they kick the XP??? Why? Why not try to go up 2 possessions in the 4th qtr? Was that decision based off analytics or based off their struggle for much of the game from the 2 1/2 yard line?

Kicking that XP negated the consistent aggressiveness that I didn’t fully agree with.

You kick the PAT there to force the other team to need to convert a 2pt conversion. If you are down 14, score a TD, always go for 2. 

posted by Laley23

You kick the PAT there to force the other team to need to convert a 2pt conversion. If you are down 14, score a TD, always go for 2. 

So if you are down 14-0 in the first and you score a TD, always go for 2?

I’d recommend the analytics guys come up with more effective play calls to start the game.

If you are always going to go for it on 4th & 6 early in the game because 6 points > 3 points, why wouldn't you always go for the 2-point conversation early in the game? It is basically like going for 4th & 2 with the chance to get double the points.

posted by Al Bundy

If you are always going to go for it on 4th & 6 early in the game because 6 points > 3 points, why wouldn't you always go for the 2-point conversation early in the game? It is basically like going for 4th & 2 with the chance to get double the points.

I personally would go for 2 everytime. But the thought process is that 7 is 4 more than 3. 2 is only 1 more than 1. The risk reward isnt nearly as large. 

posted by Ironman92

So if you are down 14-0 in the first and you score a TD, always go for 2?

I’d recommend the analytics guys come up with more effective play calls to start the game.

No, sorry. Not early. You do it late, like starting in the 4th. Thought process is you need 3 unanswered scores to win. If you can convert the first one, you only need 2. If you fail but convert the second, you are tied and still need that 3rd score. If you fail on both, you still need that 3rd score anyway. 

The goal SHOULDNT be to simply get to OT when down 14 (or whatever number). It should be to minimize the times you need to score to win. Getting to OT just makes it a 50% probability you win or lose. Wouldnt you rather go for 2 twice hoping to convert first, with the backup of the second time and at worst need to get a last minute 3rd score. 

posted by Laley23

No, sorry. Not early. You do it late, like starting in the 4th. Thought process is you need 3 unanswered scores to win. If you can convert the first one, you only need 2. If you fail but convert the second, you are tied and still need that 3rd score. If you fail on both, you still need that 3rd score anyway. 

The goal SHOULDNT be to simply get to OT when down 14 (or whatever number). It should be to minimize the times you need to score to win. Getting to OT just makes it a 50% probability you win or lose. Wouldnt you rather go for 2 twice hoping to convert first, with the backup of the second time and at worst need to get a last minute 3rd score. 

I think that you need to look at the matchups in each case. If I'm the Ravens and have Tucker, I like my chances in OT because he gives a big advantage.

I think I'd rather win than be analytically correct.

posted by BR1986FB

I think I'd rather win than be analytically correct.

How did going for it yesterday cost them a win?

They also beat Chiefs and Browns SPECIFICALLY by being analytically correct. So they’d have 2 more loses and 1 more win by that logic. 

posted by Laley23

No, sorry. Not early. You do it late, like starting in the 4th. Thought process is you need 3 unanswered scores to win. If you can convert the first one, you only need 2. If you fail but convert the second, you are tied and still need that 3rd score. If you fail on both, you still need that 3rd score anyway. 

The goal SHOULDNT be to simply get to OT when down 14 (or whatever number). It should be to minimize the times you need to score to win. Getting to OT just makes it a 50% probability you win or lose. Wouldnt you rather go for 2 twice hoping to convert first, with the backup of the second time and at worst need to get a last minute 3rd score. 

Please define “late”

posted by Ironman92

Please define “late”

As in, you score, get a stop, score...is the next score going to win the game? Generally, I think anytime in the 4th Q. 

And just for you I92, cause I feel you will agree on this. 

You get the score and stop and score. If you are tied or up, other team is going for the win, and likely getting the FG attempt. 

If you are losing, you likely get a stop and the ball back with a chance to win. Its maximizing all these scenarios. 

posted by Laley23

As in, you score, get a stop, score...is the next score going to win the game? Generally, I think anytime in the 4th Q. 

I agree with that. That’s late enough to eliminate all the “feel/gut” factors

posted by Laley23

And just for you I92, cause I feel you will agree on this. 

You get the score and stop and score. If you are tied or up, other team is going for the win, and likely getting the FG attempt. 

If you are losing, you likely get a stop and the ball back with a chance to win. Its maximizing all these scenarios. 

What if the team realizes the momentum shift and decides to go for the 1st down to run out the clock instead of punting it back?

Anyways I get all this I was just calling out your down 14 always go for 2, knowing you didn’t mean it early in the game….or even 3rd qtr as you explained.

I just wanted the Chargers to take the 3 to start the game after their returner inexplicably fell down, then they forgot Ekeler got them all the way down to the 6 then ran dumb plays….take the 3 and go from there.  The other ones I’m good with but not going for 2 to make it a 9 point lead just doesn’t compute with me based on everything else they had done….and this was late in the game.

I also wanted some consideration for the fact that the Chiefs have been great on defense the past 6 weeks and especially stingy the last month….this wasn’t the Falcons and a 41-38 game, the Chiefs have been excellent on defense. I don’t feel it was a factor at all with SD, just by god we are going for it because that’s what we do…..but if we have the chance late in the game to make it a 2 possession game, we are going to do something else.

posted by Ironman92

I just wanted the Chargers to take the 3 to start the game after their returner inexplicably fell down, then they forgot Ekeler got them all the way down to the 6 then ran dumb plays….take the 3 and go from there.  

To me, the issue is less "better to get 7 than 3", but more the situation at times. There's a big difference between 4th and Goal from the 1 and 4th and Goal from the 5, which was the game's first possession. Forgetting about the run and doing four straight pass plays definitely played a role in that -- which leads to the point that egghead analytic decision-making and bonehead play-calling probably aren't the best combination.

One could also say the failures that resulted from those missed opportunities that lead to 0 instead of 3 contributed to the game's momentum, as the Chargers looked to be the better team for much of the game, but it's hard to discount the mental aspect of coming up completely empty on multiple trips inside the 10 -- both negatively for LAC and positively for KC. I mean, analytics are good in a lot of ways, but anything that can't involve the mental aspect of a game is in no way a be-all, end-all for how decisions should be made.

Either way, the argument over how important analytics are is really taking away from the most important takeaway from last night: How much Joe Buck fucking sucks. How did he phrase it? "I'm not going to speculate on this injury, but I think his arms are shaking because it's a bit cooler than usual in Los Angeles." Or Fox in general. Yeah, we all really needed extreme close-ups of the dude out cold on the ground and of said shaky arms. Good thing the game didn't have a Theismann/Krumrie incident or we'd have 500 close-up slow-mo replays of a leg flipping and flopping in multiple directions while Buck explained that pro athletes do a lot of agility training and, therefore, are really flexible.