2021 NFL Playoffs Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Yup. And congrats on the Super Bowl return. You do a good job on here remaining fairly neutral, I almost forget you're a Bucs fan sometimes. My fanboy azz couldn't do it haha, kudos

Thanks man. I always like to think I'm a football fan first, Bucs fan second so I just enjoy watching and analyzing and thinking through football. It is without a doubt the most strategically based major sport in the world so I've always enjoyed breaking it down. It's still so strange to me the Bucs are here right now, my hope for the season was to just not see 40 turnovers this year. Instead whatever witchcraft Brady conjures up has them in the Super Bowl somehow. This was definitely a talented team when Jameis was throwing every other game away, but even with adding Brady I seriously doubted anything more than a playoff appearance. But yeah, witchcraft.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Between McDermott and Lafleur, the analytics crowd are losing their #### today.

It's funny because they both got a few of the correct analytics calls right, they just botched the most important ones. McDermott though, like this is where you don't even need analytics to tell you that you are playing the Chiefs and you are never beating the Chiefs kicking FGs. One of these days we will see a team playing the Chiefs who will employ the full David strategy and just go hyper aggressive trying to score points. Pinning your hopes of stopping Mahomes is probably the single worst strategy in the league right now.

With more time to think about LaFleur though, the analytics crowd is all about GWC as you know, so I was somewhat surprised to learn that going for the FG only cost the Packers 1% GWC. But it makes sense because winning based off going for it you need a lot of things to break right. Converting a 4th and 8 is probably a 1/3 proposition, getting the 2PT is 1/2, and then keeping the Bucs out of a FG to win probably 1/3, plus the coin toss at 1/2 and then scoring a TD to guarantee the win is probably 1/3....yeah that's a lot to go right even if you do go for it. Kicking the FG is a given, so at that point stopping the Bucs is probably 2/5 and then scoring the TD to win 1/4.

This is not absolving LaFleur for the decision, because in the end it's still about trusting your defense over Aaron Rodgers and that's a terrible choice you don't need analytics for. But from a purely analytics perspective it wasn't a disastrous decision. But it's funny because when they were down 28-23, LaFleur actually made the correct analytics call to go for two. But it hurt them I think in the end because if you're down 8 you have to consider the 2 and with the 2 minute warning and all the timeouts you can justify a FG more. But if you were down 7 then you remove a 50/50 2 PT element from the equation going for it becomes a lot more logical.

Speaking of Rodgers though, he should get more stick for not running for it on 2nd or 3rd down when there were lanes to maybe score. Even if he gets stopped short it makes going for it far more likely from the 3 yard line than the 8. The Packers strategy there appeared to be throw quick three times so that if you score you can miss the 2 and have timeouts on the two minute warning, and if you don't score you can kick the FG and have a chance to get it back. But in that moment Rodgers needed to take a chance that he'd be stopped short and their strategy takes a hit. But even if it was a bad decision to kick from the 8, it's more reasonable than kicking from the 3. Either way it was another heartbreaking loss for the Packers, and it underlines that the Rodgers era has been closer to a disappointment than a success.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

How sick am I going to be of the GOAT vs "the next one" in the lead up to the super bowl? Because that storyline is going to be shoved down our throats for the next 14 days.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How sick am I going to be of the GOAT vs "the next one" in the lead up to the super bowl? Because that storyline is going to be shoved down our throats for the next 14 days.

Indeed. They should focus on the more interesting storylines like...well crap there aren’t any. GOAT vs Next One it is!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How sick am I going to be of the GOAT vs "the next one" in the lead up to the super bowl? Because that storyline is going to be shoved down our throats for the next 14 days.

This Super Bowl is the best scenario that the NFL could have hoped for. It's going to create much more hype than any other matchup even if the game doesn't live up to it as the Chiefs (providing nothing happens to Mahomes) will probably roll over the Bucs just like they did the Bills. Their offense gets all the hype but the defense has been very solid which makes them so hard to beat.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I should say that I do think the Bills are going to be kicking around the Superbowl for the next few seasons. They could be a bit like the Favre era Packers where they are a top end team, but have a couple tough competitors in their own Conference who stop them from winning as much as they could. I do think Allen will win a Superbowl in the next 5 years. KC sent a lot of pressure and I don't think many other QB's could with stand it and still make some of the plays he could. He's like a combination of Roethlisberger and Favre but more advanced at a young age and has a better head for the off field stuff. So Bills fans still have a lot to look forward to, and next year might finally be their year.

They had a poor game plan and should have been able to have a better showing this time around. But yah they will be back.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This Super Bowl is the best scenario that the NFL could have hoped for. It's going to create much more hype than any other matchup even if the game doesn't live up to it as the Chiefs (providing nothing happens to Mahomes) will probably roll over the Bucs just like they did the Bills. Their offense gets all the hype but the defense has been very solid which makes them so hard to beat.

With Hill, Kelce, and Hardman all going at their best, its basically impossible to stop them. Throw Mahomes in...

Will be needed turnovers and to score on every play.


Bucs were decently lucky too. Packers got 0 points off 2 back to back interceptions (didn't even get a first down). Convert either of those into points and its a different game.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is a really simple Super Bowl to analyze. The Chiefs OLine has been decimated with injuries and the Bucs, especially with Vita Vea back, have the ability to dominate the line of scrimmage against the Chiefs offense. If they do they will have a very real chance to win. If they don't the Chiefs will hang at least 40 on them and need Brady to produce an all-time performance to even stay close.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's funny because they both got a few of the correct analytics calls right, they just botched the most important ones. McDermott though, like this is where you don't even need analytics to tell you that you are playing the Chiefs and you are never beating the Chiefs kicking FGs. One of these days we will see a team playing the Chiefs who will employ the full David strategy and just go hyper aggressive trying to score points. Pinning your hopes of stopping Mahomes is probably the single worst strategy in the league right now.

With more time to think about LaFleur though, the analytics crowd is all about GWC as you know, so I was somewhat surprised to learn that going for the FG only cost the Packers 1% GWC. But it makes sense because winning based off going for it you need a lot of things to break right. Converting a 4th and 8 is probably a 1/3 proposition, getting the 2PT is 1/2, and then keeping the Bucs out of a FG to win probably 1/3, plus the coin toss at 1/2 and then scoring a TD to guarantee the win is probably 1/3....yeah that's a lot to go right even if you do go for it. Kicking the FG is a given, so at that point stopping the Bucs is probably 2/5 and then scoring the TD to win 1/4.

This is not absolving LaFleur for the decision, because in the end it's still about trusting your defense over Aaron Rodgers and that's a terrible choice you don't need analytics for. But from a purely analytics perspective it wasn't a disastrous decision. But it's funny because when they were down 28-23, LaFleur actually made the correct analytics call to go for two. But it hurt them I think in the end because if you're down 8 you have to consider the 2 and with the 2 minute warning and all the timeouts you can justify a FG more. But if you were down 7 then you remove a 50/50 2 PT element from the equation going for it becomes a lot more logical.

Speaking of Rodgers though, he should get more stick for not running for it on 2nd or 3rd down when there were lanes to maybe score. Even if he gets stopped short it makes going for it far more likely from the 3 yard line than the 8. The Packers strategy there appeared to be throw quick three times so that if you score you can miss the 2 and have timeouts on the two minute warning, and if you don't score you can kick the FG and have a chance to get it back. But in that moment Rodgers needed to take a chance that he'd be stopped short and their strategy takes a hit. But even if it was a bad decision to kick from the 8, it's more reasonable than kicking from the 3. Either way it was another heartbreaking loss for the Packers, and it underlines that the Rodgers era has been closer to a disappointment than a success.

And in Lafleur's defense, that 2 pt play hit the WR right in the hands and he dropped it. Big miss.

I personally think Lafleur is getting too much flak for these decisions. I may not agree with them but all have logic behind them. If you want to blame him for anything blame him for abandoning their formula on offense when they got it back to a 1 score game which led to them getting nothing on 2 straight Brady INTs. Offense went cold in the Q4 because Lafleur got away from what made them so great in the regular season.

[Senator Clay Davis]

There's only really an issue with kicking the FG. You always go for two as early as possible so if you don't get it you know what you need to score and have the maximum amount of time to do it. It was hilarious listening to Romo after the Bills recovered the onside kick yesterday down 38-21 talking about how they blew it going for two instead of kicking the EP to get down 38-22. But assuming you're a lock to get those two point conversions is naïve to say the least. At least by missing early the Bills knew exactly what they had to do. If you even get it to 38-36 and you miss the two to tie with likely no time left then you're screwed. Improbable as down 17 with four minutes left is, it's still more likely than once you miss the tying two point try with no time left.

[dirk diggler]

Whether Lafleur's decision was or wasnt the correct one, the fact that a corner lets a guy get behind him with 6 seconds left at the half and no time outs left is beyond stupid. He should have played 15 yards off of him. That is almost Jets like in its stupidity.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

There's only really an issue with kicking the FG. You always go for two as early as possible so if you don't get it you know what you need to score and have the maximum amount of time to do it. It was hilarious listening to Romo after the Bills recovered the onside kick yesterday down 38-21 talking about how they blew it going for two instead of kicking the EP to get down 38-22. But assuming you're a lock to get those two point conversions is naïve to say the least. At least by missing early the Bills knew exactly what they had to do. If you even get it to 38-36 and you miss the two to tie with likely no time left then you're screwed. Improbable as down 17 with four minutes left is, it's still more likely than once you miss the tying two point try with no time left.

The problem I had with going for 2 there is if you make it you need two touchdowns. If you miss it, you need 2 touchdowns and a field goal. If you just kick the single you are 2 touchdowns down.

Yah you still need to get 2 two point conversions, but I think I would rather have had that chance after the onside kick.

It was over when they missed the 2 pointer.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It theoretically keeps you in the game a little longer, but all you are doing is delaying having to go through a 50/50 play (in this case two of them). I suppose you could argue keeping it alive puts more pressure on the Chiefs defense, but then again it also puts more pressure on the Bills offense because the later you push back the 50/50 call, the less time you have to recover if you fail. It's odd to me that there's an assumption down 16 you're a lock to score the two point conversions.

It's all kinda splitting hairs because they still needed two onside kicks plus they needed to stop the Chiefs which they hadn't done all game. They lost because they played most of the game in a not to lose mentality which you cannot do against the Chiefs.

[Cheese]

[oldschoolcalgary]

Yeah, its going to be a lot of Brady/Mahomes talk the next two weeks...

But it is a helluva storyline... Not that Brady needed any more tire pumping, but if he manages to win this one, it would be amazing... Bucs defense will need to come up huge though...

[Sylvanfan]

I think this will be Brady's 3rd Superbowl since turning 40 and 4th in the last 5 years. Playing in the game at age 39,40,41, and now 43. That's a great stretch that gets a QB at any age to the Hall of Fame. To do this at this age is something else.

Yesterday was not his best game, but he made enough positive plays to score points, and the turn overs all had Green Bay starting on their own side of the field. If you look at his playoff log of starts these Championship games are always tough, but 10 out of 14 times he's come out the winner.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Reading some Football Outsiders last night and they noted that there hasn't been a single fourth quarter lead change all playoffs, and there's only been one tie in the fourth (TB-NO was 20-20). Been some close games in the playoffs, but not a lot of compelling games without those twists and turns. Hopefully we get like eight lead changes in the fourth of the Super Bowl

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reading some Football Outsiders last night and they noted that there hasn't been a single fourth quarter lead change all playoffs, and there's only been one tie in the fourth (TB-NO was 20-20). Been some close games in the playoffs, but not a lot of compelling games without those twists and turns. Hopefully we get like eight lead changes in the fourth of the Super Bowl

Eight in one quarter? Has that even happened before? I find that hard to believe that a football game could have that many lead changes in a game or half, let alone a quarter. Or is my sarcasm radar off today?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Pretty sure the NFL record in a quarter is eight. But yeah not sarcasm, extreme hope I guess that we get a thrilling finale to these playoffs, because to date the most thrilling sequence involved Chad Henne, so....

[KelVarnsen]

I rather the Chiefs be up by 8 TDs in the 4th quarter.