What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Just like Shanahan, Edwards made the wrong decision (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
Several weeks ago, I called out Shanahan for going for 2 against the Chargers. It worked, and most people disagreed with me. Well, now you see the downside. It's much better to get into OT and take your chances.

 
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.

 
I disagree. You're the Chiefs and you suck. Why not go for it all? It's not like you have anything to lose. Another loss isn't going to end the season. The season's already over.

 
timschochet said:
Several weeks ago, I called out Shanahan for going for 2 against the Chargers. It worked, and most people disagreed with me. Well, now you see the downside. It's much better to get into OT and take your chances.
Click to expand...
Who would have guessed there could be a downside to it?
 
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
 
That's just bull. Have you guys been paying attention? NO ONE wants the high draft picks these days.

 
Disagree. It was the right decision and teams should go for 2 all the time. The success rate is over 50%, therefore it would pay off to go for 2 everytime.

 
My problem is that you have two "pluses" for kicking and one "plus" and one "minus" when you go for 2.

You kick the field goal:

1) you don't lose

2) you have a chance to win

You go for two:

1) you lose

2) you win

 
GroveDiesel said:
Disagree. It was the right decision and teams should go for 2 all the time. The success rate is over 50%, therefore it would pay off to go for 2 everytime.
Click to expand...
I doubt it would be over 50% if the defense was always more prepared for it. I'd like to know, if anyone has the information, what the percentages are for 3rd and two and 4th and two. If those also have a success rate of over 50%, then I might buy into this.
 
I thought it was the right call. Had momentum. You don't know what info Herm had in terms of injuries or how gassed he thought his guys were. Charger D was on their heels but guessed right on the play call, blew up Gonzo going across the field, Thigpen didn't have much once he was out of the play.

 
BusMan said:
My problem is that you have two "pluses" for kicking and one "plus" and one "minus" when you go for 2.You kick the field goal:1) you don't lose2) you have a chance to winYou go for two:1) you lose2) you win
Click to expand...
Which completely ignores the fact that you're on the road with a weak 1-7 team and a chance to beat a division rival, when you probably shouldn't even be in the game in the first place.Herm made the right call. It didn't work, and that sucks for him.
 
Herm made the right call. Chiefs had nothing to lose. Their season is over. I respect him for taking a risk and going for it.

The odds of going for 2 and winning the coin flip are probably about the same.

 
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
I don't think this loss hurts any more than they already were when they realized they were eliminated from the playoffs. I look at it as the players probably gaining some confidence because their coach believed they would convert the two. They played some good football, came up short and their young QB had another very good performance. They will come out of this game looking at the positives.
 
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
Tell me O wise one...exactly what is the NFL conversion rate for 2 pt. attempts?If it's over 50%...then you're wrong...plain and simple.IN this case...the Chiefs had a gift of a terrible PI call allowing them first and goal. A disheartened and frustrated SD defense would have NOT been disheartened after a short break, esp. if SD won the tos and got first crack.PS: It's 52%, and that means you're wrong. FWIW, a case could be made that it's worth it to ALWAYS go for two, although most suspect that rate would dip down into the mid 40's if they did. It's a bit easier to pick up 2 yards late in most games then early.
 
timschochet said:
JZilla said:
Shanahan's decision was bold.Edwards' decision was stupid.
Click to expand...
Because it failed?
Click to expand...
PartlyShanahan:1. It was major shootout, both teams were unstoppable, if the Chargers had won the OT coinflip they would have won the game2. He's Mike Shanahan. He has two rings and a great record.3. He made it.Edwards:1. The Chargers were playing like crap, almost like they wanted to lose2. He's Herm Edwards. Terrible coach.3. He didn't make it.
 
duece2626 said:
Herm made the right call. Chiefs had nothing to lose. Their season is over. I respect him for taking a risk and going for it.

The odds of going for 2 and winning the coin flip are probably about the same.
Click to expand...
If this is true, then you should NEVER go for 2 in this situation, because losing the coin flip does not lose you the game. The odds are against you, but it's certainly not over.The only way this would make sense is if you have a higher chance of success in going for 2 than you would in winnning in OT. I don't believe that's the case.

I have no argument with the phrase "play to win." I just don't agree that going for 2 is the way to do it.

 
Easily the right call, even IF you don't consider that KC's defense sucks ###, and just like last week there would be a good chance the opponent marches down the field in OT and kicks the game-winning FG.

 
He should have kicked the PAT because I needed more points out of LT and Rivers. You're 1-7, who cares about YOUR team?

 
renesauz said:
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
Tell me O wise one...exactly what is the NFL conversion rate for 2 pt. attempts?If it's over 50%...then you're wrong...plain and simple.

IN this case...the Chiefs had a gift of a terrible PI call allowing them first and goal. A disheartened and frustrated SD defense would have NOT been disheartened after a short break, esp. if SD won the tos and got first crack.

PS: It's 52%, and that means you're wrong. FWIW, a case could be made that it's worth it to ALWAYS go for two, although most suspect that rate would dip down into the mid 40's if they did. It's a bit easier to pick up 2 yards late in most games then early.
Click to expand...
You don't need to mock me, simply because we disagree. Instead of measuring your chances of going for two in any situation, you'd have to instead measure the success rate of going for 2 in this situation. Meaning with the game on the line. I'm guessing it's less than 50%, though I admit the sample is small,
 
BusMan said:
My problem is that you have two "pluses" for kicking and one "plus" and one "minus" when you go for 2.

You kick the field goal:

1) you don't lose

2) you have a chance to win

You go for two:

1) you lose

2) you win
Click to expand...
#1 isn't a "win." Playing not to lose is exactly how bad teams lose. The only thing you really lose is the game, which isn't all that important to a 1-7 team.

But you can win:

the game (a win helps more than a loss hurts at this stage)

enthusiasm

morale

the satisfaction of beating a divison rival on the road (that thinks they're playoff-worthy)

some confidence for a QB thrust into the spotlight

some kudos to a coach for showing some cohones who's already under fire

a little pride for some fans who are wondering why they should even keep watching.

As a fan, I think it's better to watch your team lose like that than have them kick the XP and lose in OT.

 
timschochet said:
renesauz said:
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
Tell me O wise one...exactly what is the NFL conversion rate for 2 pt. attempts?If it's over 50%...then you're wrong...plain and simple.

IN this case...the Chiefs had a gift of a terrible PI call allowing them first and goal. A disheartened and frustrated SD defense would have NOT been disheartened after a short break, esp. if SD won the tos and got first crack.

PS: It's 52%, and that means you're wrong. FWIW, a case could be made that it's worth it to ALWAYS go for two, although most suspect that rate would dip down into the mid 40's if they did. It's a bit easier to pick up 2 yards late in most games then early.
Click to expand...
You don't need to mock me, simply because we disagree. Instead of measuring your chances of going for two in any situation, you'd have to instead measure the success rate of going for 2 in this situation. Meaning with the game on the line. I'm guessing it's less than 50%, though I admit the sample is small,
Click to expand...
It is not a "disagreement" Tim. You are wrong. Going for it was the right play. The odds of converting are over 50%.
 
timschochet said:
duece2626 said:
Herm made the right call. Chiefs had nothing to lose. Their season is over. I respect him for taking a risk and going for it.

The odds of going for 2 and winning the coin flip are probably about the same.
Click to expand...
If this is true, then you should NEVER go for 2 in this situation, because losing the coin flip does not lose you the game. The odds are against you, but it's certainly not over.The only way this would make sense is if you have a higher chance of success in going for 2 than you would in winnning in OT. I don't believe that's the case.

I have no argument with the phrase "play to win." I just don't agree that going for 2 is the way to do it.
Click to expand...
Dude...are you just TRYING to be obtuse? Assuming the teams had played even and the score wasn't fluky, the Chiefs odds in OT are about 50%, regadless of the coin toss.

The odds of punching in a two pt. conversion at the end of a game are just slightly over 50%.

Now, if you're the kind of guy who has no balls, and would rather say you lost in OT then lost in regulation (and there are a lot of guys out there like that, particularly when their multi-million dollar job is on the line), then you go for 1.

Is that wrong...not really. But it's actually quite idiotic to call it a bad play when STATISTICLY it has at LEAST the same odds of getting you a win as going to OT does. Those of you who don't like it aren't fools to prefer OT (the #s are the same)...but you're way, way, off base to call out the coach for it.

 
They kick the extra point earlier in the game this is non discussion!

Did not like it then with Denver, did not like this call. Regardless of record, going for the two has implications for other teams in the AFC...

 
SanDawg said:
They kick the extra point earlier in the game this is non discussion!

Did not like it then with Denver, did not like this call. Regardless of record, going for the two has implications for other teams in the AFC...
Click to expand...
Should Herm consult with other coaches before making all his decisions?
 
SKribbles said:
timschochet said:
renesauz said:
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
Tell me O wise one...exactly what is the NFL conversion rate for 2 pt. attempts?If it's over 50%...then you're wrong...plain and simple.

IN this case...the Chiefs had a gift of a terrible PI call allowing them first and goal. A disheartened and frustrated SD defense would have NOT been disheartened after a short break, esp. if SD won the tos and got first crack.

PS: It's 52%, and that means you're wrong. FWIW, a case could be made that it's worth it to ALWAYS go for two, although most suspect that rate would dip down into the mid 40's if they did. It's a bit easier to pick up 2 yards late in most games then early.
Click to expand...
You don't need to mock me, simply because we disagree. Instead of measuring your chances of going for two in any situation, you'd have to instead measure the success rate of going for 2 in this situation. Meaning with the game on the line. I'm guessing it's less than 50%, though I admit the sample is small,
Click to expand...
It is not a "disagreement" Tim. You are wrong. Going for it was the right play. The odds of converting are over 50%.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying that. I guess the argument is over now, and you have won.
 
SanDawg said:
They kick the extra point earlier in the game this is non discussion!Did not like it then with Denver, did not like this call. Regardless of record, going for the two has implications for other teams in the AFC...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure Herm or KC is really concerned about anyone else in the AFC. :confused:
 
timschochet said:
SKribbles said:
timschochet said:
renesauz said:
timschochet said:
Johnny Ice said:
The Chiefs are 1-7. They had nothing to lose, I totally agree with the decision. If the Chiefs were in the thick of a playoff hunt I agree they should play it safe and take their chances in OT.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. But you do have something to lose- every loss hurts. Play to win: and to me that means OT. This has to be a very disheartening loss for the players.
Click to expand...
Tell me O wise one...exactly what is the NFL conversion rate for 2 pt. attempts?If it's over 50%...then you're wrong...plain and simple.

IN this case...the Chiefs had a gift of a terrible PI call allowing them first and goal. A disheartened and frustrated SD defense would have NOT been disheartened after a short break, esp. if SD won the tos and got first crack.

PS: It's 52%, and that means you're wrong. FWIW, a case could be made that it's worth it to ALWAYS go for two, although most suspect that rate would dip down into the mid 40's if they did. It's a bit easier to pick up 2 yards late in most games then early.
Click to expand...
You don't need to mock me, simply because we disagree. Instead of measuring your chances of going for two in any situation, you'd have to instead measure the success rate of going for 2 in this situation. Meaning with the game on the line. I'm guessing it's less than 50%, though I admit the sample is small,
Click to expand...
It is not a "disagreement" Tim. You are wrong. Going for it was the right play. The odds of converting are over 50%.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying that. I guess the argument is over now, and you have won.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ignatiusjreilly
What did we learn about ambiguous RB/WR situations in Week 1?
Replies
8
Views
239
Chaka
Chaka
cheese
How to Rank Achane
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
TripItUp
TripItUp
Ministry of Pain
Projected Win totals for all 32 teams
Replies
24
Views
636
Alex P Keaton
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top