I'd like to think at this point giving the ball back to Mahomes with any sort of chance to win the game in the playoffs is universally viewed as a fatal move . Only in the Bengals game in 2021 did Mahomes have the ball with a chance to win and he did not come through. Never got a shot in 2018 after leading them back against the Patriots, and 2020 was a blowout, but otherwise he has been cash money with the game on the line in the playoffs. Shanahan can try and rationalize it all he wants, but Mahomes isn't other QB's, you have to be riskier than you'd normally be.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
I disagree on going for it on 4th down in OT. You give the ball to Mahomes and he only needs a field goal to win the Superbowl (potentially), and that's just a brutal decision.
Sure but I think Mahomes needing a FG or a TD, he'll get whatever he needs, not much difference. The reward is much greater than the risk. Leading by 7, that forces Mahomes to go 75 yards, and then they probably go for 2.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Thank god overtime gave us something to dissect over and over again because 90% of that game was trash. Niners got Shanahaned as is tradition and Mahomes is gonna make Brady fans so mad. Injuries notwithstanding in a few years it won’t be a question of who is but by what magnitude Mahomes is considered the greatest ever.
These aren’t the early Brady game manager defence and kicking game winning FG’s Super Bowl wins this is one player dragging as trash offence to win against what most thought was a perfectly constructed team. Unbelievably impressive victory for KC
Oh and maybe this is the year Sylvan stops thinking every week is the week the chiefs turn into the Lions lol. I guess it’s better than the pats fans that used to exist but it’s still funny. Be happy man!
Probably the correct OT strategy is take the ball and plan on the 2pt convert if you score. Why leave that up to the other guy. If you fail they still need a TD to win. If you get it the best they can do is tie and you get the third chance.
This is, of course, against Mahomes. You defer or kick a field goal on 4th down against any other NFL QB
Probably the correct OT strategy is take the ball and plan on the 2pt convert if you score. Why leave that up to the other guy. If you fail they still need a TD to win. If you get it the best they can do is tie and you get the third chance.
This is, of course, against Mahomes. You defer or kick a field goal on 4th down against any other NFL QB
Even at that if you miss the 2-point conversion and the other team scores and kicks a single point for the win you get second guessed by the masses. I get the second team trying to win the game with a 2-point attempt because of the fact that the other team gets the ball back with a chance to finish the game but if that fails then you have the second guessing of why the coach didn't trust his defense, etc. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing really. At the end of the day it's the execution that matters more than the coach's decisions. The 49ers didn't execute on offense or defense in overtime and that's why they lost. Mahomes is likely one of the best QB's ever but he's human and not infallible. The eleven defenders on the field at any time have a say in the outcome and if they to a man can step up then they could have stopped the Chiefs on their drive in OT but they didn't and lost. That's the competition of sports and why we love it. Our favorite athletes stepping up and making the plays to win or the agony of being on the other side where your team couldn't make the plays to win.
I joked about it during the game, but I'm more convinced now that it should be tried.
San Francisco should have done a surprise onside kick after their FG in OT.
You get the ball back, you win.
You don't get the ball back, you still have to give up a TD to lose - and if you hold then to a FG, you just need a FG yourself to win the game on the third possession, AND in that scenario, their defence is still mroe tired becasue the KC FG drive was shorter in time.
A lot of you are saying defer. I assume you don’t mean that but mean elect to kick. That brings up an interesting but unlikely scenario if the game goes past 2 quarters and the other team gets to receive to start a new half. Probably too unlikely to worry about but not zero chance.
I joked about it during the game, but I'm more convinced now that it should be tried.
San Francisco should have done a surprise onside kick after their FG in OT.
You get the ball back, you win.
You don't get the ball back, you still have to give up a TD to lose - and if you hold then to a FG, you just need a FG yourself to win the game on the third possession, AND in that scenario, their defence is still mroe tired becasue the KC FG drive was shorter in time.
"he probability that the kicking team recovers the onside kick and wins the game is 30.4%. The probability that the kicking team does not recover and wins the game is 19.1%. Adding those two probabilities up tells us that kicking team has a 49.5% chance of winning if they start overtime with an onside kick."
EDIT: That's obviously a different scenario but still interesting.
A lot of you are saying defer. I assume you don’t mean that but mean elect to kick. That brings up an interesting but unlikely scenario if the game goes past 2 quarters and the other team gets to receive to start a new half. Probably too unlikely to worry about but not zero chance.
Electing to kick is making the choice, so in the unlikely event of triple OT the other team would have the choice to kick or receive to start triple OT. Deferring is the correct call.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Odds of recovering an onside kick are very slim. And you just increased the Chiefs odds of scoring a TD. I don’t see any reason to do it.
It’s clear after some reflection that taking the ball first was a huge mistake. His rationale of thinking about the third possession makes little sense since no reason to think it ever gets to that point. Taking the ball second gives you multiple paths to victory.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Electing to kick is making the choice, so in the unlikely event of triple OT the other team would have the choice to kick or receive to start triple OT. Deferring is the correct call.
Deferring would allow the chiefs to decide to kick.
Odds of recovering an onside kick are very slim. And you just increased the Chiefs odds of scoring a TD. I don’t see any reason to do it.
It’s clear after some reflection that taking the ball first was a huge mistake. His rationale of thinking about the third possession makes little sense since no reason to think it ever gets to that point. Taking the ball second gives you multiple paths to victory.
I still would take the ball first. You want to play from ahead, puts pressure on the 'chaser' that one mistake and the game is over. The mistake can be anything, a turnover, a sack, a penalty, 3rd and long, 4th and long etc... going 50 or 75 yards in intense pressure is not easy. KC scored 1 TD the entire game before OT, they were being controlled.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
"he probability that the kicking team recovers the onside kick and wins the game is 30.4%. The probability that the kicking team does not recover and wins the game is 19.1%. Adding those two probabilities up tells us that kicking team has a 49.5% chance of winning if they start overtime with an onside kick."
EDIT: That's obviously a different scenario but still interesting.
__________________
Sent from an adult man under a dumpster
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to darockwilder For This Useful Post:
"he probability that the kicking team recovers the onside kick and wins the game is 30.4%. The probability that the kicking team does not recover and wins the game is 19.1%. Adding those two probabilities up tells us that kicking team has a 49.5% chance of winning if they start overtime with an onside kick."
EDIT: That's obviously a different scenario but still interesting.
Since the rule change onside kicks are only recovered 6% of the time.
