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

[renesauz]

worst coaching decision of the year to date. Shameful.

you've got to be kidding me. 1-7 team, nothing to lose, playing on the road? It was the right call - most coaches would have gone for it in that scenario.

I'm not kidding. 1-7 and you're finally in a competitive game at the end. At least give your team achance to win. Why would Herm EVER think his team was good enough to convert a clutch 2PT to win. The Chiefs suck. I laughed when he went for 2. Horrible horrible decison. Single handedly lost the game for his players who played almost the best they have all season. Disgrace.

Now...this is the kind of post that really frustrates me. i really understand the camp that would rather kick it and go to OT.But the numbers are the numbers, and the SP is full of fantasy buffs who live off of numbers. And those numbers really don't lie. The odds of converting a 2 pt. conversion are just over 50%. The odds of winning in OT on the road are just under 50%. Now, you obviously have to adjust these figures based on many individual factors relevant only to the game in question, but the raw data doesn't lie.And that's where I start to question the intelligance of this and the OP. Because, according to the data, Herm quite obviously gave his team a chance to win. The disgrace is the fact that you've ignored the data which CLEARLY suggests that going for 2 is the % play.Now....in this case, with a beat up defense lucky to be in that position, a 1-7 team on the road, playng a clearly superior team, I really fail to see how anyone can reasonably suggest Herm made the wrong call, let alone made an idiotic one. And there is a huge differance between "wrong" and "idiotic".

 

[Cixelsyd]

Everyone has their own opinion... but what a way to deflate an excellent drive to come back and tie the game... they go for two and blow it... now they aren't relishing in the comeback, instead they get a L, and are questioned for the decision...

At least you tie the game... accomplished the impossible and came from behind to catch the Chargers... if you win the toss you have a good chance to get into field go position...

Yes, the team sucks... yes they have no playoff hopes... but they aren't playing to lose... you play to win... and to give you team a chance to win... that play call was horrible... it didn't fool anyone... Just another sad week in the life of the Chiefs...

 

[thehornet]

worst coaching decision of the year to date. Shameful.

you've got to be kidding me. 1-7 team, nothing to lose, playing on the road? It was the right call - most coaches would have gone for it in that scenario.

I'm not kidding. 1-7 and you're finally in a competitive game at the end. At least give your team achance to win. Why would Herm EVER think his team was good enough to convert a clutch 2PT to win. The Chiefs suck. I laughed when he went for 2. Horrible horrible decison. Single handedly lost the game for his players who played almost the best they have all season. Disgrace.

Now...this is the kind of post that really frustrates me. i really understand the camp that would rather kick it and go to OT.But the numbers are the numbers, and the SP is full of fantasy buffs who live off of numbers. And those numbers really don't lie. The odds of converting a 2 pt. conversion are just over 50%. The odds of winning in OT on the road are just under 50%. Now, you obviously have to adjust these figures based on many individual factors relevant only to the game in question, but the raw data doesn't lie.And that's where I start to question the intelligance of this and the OP. Because, according to the data, Herm quite obviously gave his team a chance to win. The disgrace is the fact that you've ignored the data which CLEARLY suggests that going for 2 is the % play.Now....in this case, with a beat up defense lucky to be in that position, a 1-7 team on the road, playng a clearly superior team, I really fail to see how anyone can reasonably suggest Herm made the wrong call, let alone made an idiotic one. And there is a huge differance between "wrong" and "idiotic".

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor. I'm sorry. There is a big difference of having a Brady-led Patriots team go for a 2 point conversion and having a Thigpen-led Chiefs going for the 2pt conversion. Obviously, those stats can't be used in a vaccum, as you clearly are. Do you mean to tell me that a Thigpen/Chiefs team has the same chance of scoring a 2pt conversion as a Brady/Colts team? Or even a Favre/Jets, Manning/Colts, Romo/Dallas etc etc etc?Anyways - This is gettting out of hand. I think it was a stupid decision and the Chiefs lost. If this very accurate data doesn't support it, then oh well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

 

[duece2626]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

 

[renesauz]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor. I'm sorry. There is a big difference of having a Brady-led Patriots team go for a 2 point conversion and having a Thigpen-led Chiefs going for the 2pt conversion. Obviously, those stats can't be used in a vaccum, as you clearly are. Do you mean to tell me that a Thigpen/Chiefs team has the same chance of scoring a 2pt conversion as a Brady/Colts team? Or even a Favre/Jets, Manning/Colts, Romo/Dallas etc etc etc?Anyways - This is gettting out of hand. I think it was a stupid decision and the Chiefs lost. If this very accurate data doesn't support it, then oh well.

But can't you see how incredibly counter-intuitive your logic is? If your team sucks, and you don't deserve to be in it against a clearly superior team, then doesn't that greaty reduce your odds of winning in OT?Put it this way....Even if you win the toss, which odds do you really like better....Drive a probable 45 yards and kick a long FG to win. (Don't forget, you have to win the toss first! If you lose the toss, you have to keep the Chargers from driving 45 yards...which your defese has NOT accomplished all day! O...and you've got 4 new players on the field on defnse, a couple of which have 2 weeks on the team.)ORGo for it all on a 2 yard play.The raw data says going for two is the better play. The game situation says going for two is the batter play. Kicking the XP is the gutless play.

 

[thehornet]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.

If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

I was captain of my team in High school dude, i'm pretty sure I could take him every now and then to 15. haham just messing around.But seriously, that's a silly comparison. It can be used in the reverse thinking as well. Why not take your chance with a coin flip and have multiple downs to get into FG range. Scoring Td's has been very difficult for the Chiefs this year and a 2 Pt conversion is essentially scoring a TD. Why not try a coin flip and make a couple plays to get into FG position?

 

[renesauz]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.

If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

I was captain of my team in High school dude, i'm pretty sure I could take him every now and then to 15. haham just messing around.But seriously, that's a silly comparison. It can be used in the reverse thinking as well. Why not take your chance with a coin flip and have multiple downs to get into FG range. Scoring Td's has been very difficult for the Chiefs this year and a 2 Pt conversion is essentially scoring a TD. Why not try a coin flip and make a couple plays to get into FG position?

Because it's much easier for a bad team to get 2 yards on one play then to get 45 yards on any given series.Mauriles analogy is over-the top, but actually perfect.

The offense might have had a 50-50 shot at that 45 yd drive, but the defense had far less then a 50-50 shot of preventing the 45 yd drive had the Chargers won the toss.

 

[Donnybrook]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.

If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

San Diego defense not equal to Michael Jordan

 

[renesauz]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.

If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

San Diego defense not equal to Michael Jordan

Still a great analogy. If your opponent is clearly better then you, then you have a better chance of beating him on one play then on a series of plays.Besides, the deciding factor was NOT the SD defense...it was the beat up KC defense. Had SD won the toss, the KC defense would hav had little hope of holding. IE: Odds in OT were only 50-50 or better if they WIN THE COIN TOSS. If they lost the toss, KC's odds would have been much, much lower.

Whether or not to go for two has been debated for years. It's always been generally agreed that it's best to go for two

- on the road

- against a better team OR

- when your defense is beat up/struggling.

In this case, ALL THREE POINTS WERE TRUE!!!!!

 

[Donnybrook]

I do not think it is a great analogy since any team in the NFL can beat any other on any given Sunday. The chances that you or I could beating Jordon head to head is beyond remote. I felt like the Chiefs were pressing their luck going for it there. The Thigpen roll out was the obvious call. I don't know if any other coach in the league makes that call - at least one that cares whether or not he has a job at the end of the year.

As for the Chargers being clearly better than the Chiefs, they usually are but not this week. If they were they wouldn't have given up over 300 yards and 3 TDs to a team using a third string QB and a third string RB.

 

[thehornet]

you can't take those stats (wherever you are getting them from) and apply them to just any team. The Chiefs are horrible and this is a factor.

If the Chiefs are horrible, that's a strong indication that they should have gone for two.If they're horrible, they're going to have to get lucky. It's a lot easier to get lucky on one play than on a bunch of plays.

If you had to play one-on-one basketball against Michael Jordan, do you think you'd have a better chance if you played to 1, or if you played to 15?

San Diego defense not equal to Michael Jordan

Still a great analogy. If your opponent is clearly better then you, then you have a better chance of beating him on one play then on a series of plays.Besides, the deciding factor was NOT the SD defense...it was the beat up KC defense. Had SD won the toss, the KC defense would hav had little hope of holding. IE: Odds in OT were only 50-50 or better if they WIN THE COIN TOSS. If they lost the toss, KC's odds would have been much, much lower.

Whether or not to go for two has been debated for years. It's always been generally agreed that it's best to go for two

- on the road

- against a better team OR

- when your defense is beat up/struggling.

In this case, ALL THREE POINTS WERE TRUE!!!!!

bad analogy and you are wrong. SD was NOT better than KC on Sunday.

 

[BusterTBronco]

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 circumstances of these two games were not entirely the same. Denver's defense was being completely dominated in the second half by the Chargers. If the Broncos had lost the coin toss in OT, they would have lost the game. No doubt about it. Why would you leave your fate up to a coin toss when you can take your chances with Jay Cutler slinging the rock?The Chiefs, on the other hands, should have played for the OT. Their defense was not good but not getting dominated like the Broncos were. Also, Thigpen is not Cutler.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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...

Thank you!While everyone's arguing back-and-forth about that particular decision, I still can't believe the idiotard went for two in in the second quarter after the Chiefs scored their second TD to make it a 13-6 game. If he simply kicks the XP then, the XP at the end wins the game.

What. a. fool.

Uh. they didn't go for two. It was a botched XP that they then threw into the end zone to try to at least get the two points. The box score makes it look like they flat-out went for two, but that is not how it happened.

So in retrospect they should have gone for two on this attempt also.

 

[Topes]

Can't we all agree to disagree?

 

[CrazyHorse1581]

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 win

You forgot3) you miss the xtra point and loseSomething that happened earlier in the game due to a botched snap by a newly signed longsnapper.It was the right call

 

[thehornet]

HERM IS STUPID! I think this is something we can all agree on. Let's end it on that note.

 

[Modog814]

I don't see why anyone has a problem with this.

The numbers are close enough to make a case for either decision.

But ultimately it comes down to the coaches gut, and Herm said in the press conference that he didn't feel like his defense had enough left in them to make a stop in OT if it came to that. He felt that he'd rather have his offense on the field for 1 play to gain a couple yards than have the fate of the game rest in a coin flip.

I think the easy way out was to kick the extra point and go to OT (I believe there was around 28 seconds left so who says it would have gone to OT anyway), and most coaches would have ignored their gut and gone for the extra point. But I actually applaud Herm for listening to his gut and not playing to not lose, it's just unfortunate for him that it didn't turn out well.

Numbers are numbers (and trust me I am a numbers guy) but it ultimately comes down to more than numbers. None of you saw what Herm saw in his defense on the sidelines, none of you could know whether the defense (or offense) had anything left in the tank. Playing things "by the book" will make you average, it's your ability to take calculated risks that sets you apart. I'm not saying that Herm definitely made the right/wrong choice bc he was measuring intangibles we can only guess at.

 

[Maven]

It was a good call. You play to win.

 

[thehornet]

It was a good call. You play to win.

which is exactly what they didnt do and Herm said as much in his presser. The DEF was tired so we packed it in. Sad coaching very sad.

 

[renesauz]

It was a good call. You play to win.

which is exactly what they didnt do and Herm said as much in his presser. The DEF was tired so we packed it in. Sad coaching very sad.

Ya know...this is a very frustrating argument mostly because those who are against it refuse to be moved by any sort of logic. The bottom line is that many of us, perhaps even the majority of us, think it was a good move.Whether we're right, or you're right almost doesn't matter. What matters is that if opinions on whrther it's the better move are so divided, then those of you calling him out, calling him an idiot, have quite obviously taken your opinion too far. If half of us think it's the right call....then half of us are complete football idiots?Enough already...believe whatever you want.

 

[thehornet]

It was a good call. You play to win.

which is exactly what they didnt do and Herm said as much in his presser. The DEF was tired so we packed it in. Sad coaching very sad.

Ya know...this is a very frustrating argument mostly because those who are against it refuse to be moved by any sort of logic. The bottom line is that many of us, perhaps even the majority of us, think it was a good move.Whether we're right, or you're right almost doesn't matter. What matters is that if opinions on whrther it's the better move are so divided, then those of you calling him out, calling him an idiot, have quite obviously taken your opinion too far. If half of us think it's the right call....then half of us are complete football idiots?Enough already...believe whatever you want.

i never called anyone an idiot.

 

[buster c]

I can't believe this has gone 3 pages.

win or lose, I loved the call by Herm. if the Chiefs were able to sniff the playoffs, I hate the call.

but they're not.

 

[renesauz]

It was a good call. You play to win.

which is exactly what they didnt do and Herm said as much in his presser. The DEF was tired so we packed it in. Sad coaching very sad.

Ya know...this is a very frustrating argument mostly because those who are against it refuse to be moved by any sort of logic. The bottom line is that many of us, perhaps even the majority of us, think it was a good move.Whether we're right, or you're right almost doesn't matter. What matters is that if opinions on whrther it's the better move are so divided, then those of you calling him out, calling him an idiot, have quite obviously taken your opinion too far. If half of us think it's the right call....then half of us are complete football idiots?Enough already...believe whatever you want.

i never called anyone an idiot.

You didn't either call Herm an idiot, or strongly imply so? (Re-read my post as I think you misunderstood) In fact, you pretty much called Herm an idiot twice in your last 3 posts.

 

[pizzatyme]

YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.

This cliche makes zero sense here. There are several ways to play to win the game.If you're insinuating that the only way to play to win the game is to go for it, then I'm assuming that also means that teams should go for it on every 4th down, as they have the ball and a chance to score?!You kick the PAT there and take your chances in OT. It's not like the Chargers were lighting the world on fire.

 

[pizzatyme]

I can't believe this has gone 3 pages.win or lose, I loved the call by Herm. if the Chiefs were able to sniff the playoffs, I hate the call.but they're not.

So, it's a good call because their record is lousy? Maybe their record is lousy in part due to decisions like this?!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...I'm assuming that also means that teams should go for it on every 4th down, as they have the ball and a chance to score?!...

The statistics would probably surprise you, but the numbers say that you should almost never kick on fourth and one or fourth and two. That includes from your own 9 yard line. (Remember the playoff game way back when where Buffalo (I think) switched to an "automatic" on their own 10 that didn't work out?)The thing is the statistics are about improving your chances to win over the long run. In the NFL there are only 16 games in a season so the "long run" might not even wins and loses out the way they should statistically be before the coach is fired. "By the book" strategies are necessarily conservative as the purpose isn't to steal an additional win every few years, but to keep the coach from being fired.In this case whether or not going for it was the correct decision to win the game seems to depend on your opinion as to whether San Diego was outplaying Kansas City. If you answer this yes then you want to shorten the game and going for it is a good way to do that. If you answer this no then you play it safe and take your chances in overtime. Seems like most of those calling this a bad move are also thinking that Kansas City was at least holding their own at the time. It sounds like others, including Edwards are saying that San Diego was dominating everything but the score board. I only saw the very end, so I don't know how the game was playing out. I'm guessing that it was the correct call because San Diego was slowly showing down the stretch that they were the better team, but this is based only on educated guesses and hearsay.

 

[thehornet]

It was a good call. You play to win.

which is exactly what they didnt do and Herm said as much in his presser. The DEF was tired so we packed it in. Sad coaching very sad.

Ya know...this is a very frustrating argument mostly because those who are against it refuse to be moved by any sort of logic. The bottom line is that many of us, perhaps even the majority of us, think it was a good move.Whether we're right, or you're right almost doesn't matter. What matters is that if opinions on whrther it's the better move are so divided, then those of you calling him out, calling him an idiot, have quite obviously taken your opinion too far. If half of us think it's the right call....then half of us are complete football idiots?Enough already...believe whatever you want.

i never called anyone an idiot.

You didn't either call Herm an idiot, or strongly imply so? (Re-read my post as I think you misunderstood) In fact, you pretty much called Herm an idiot twice in your last 3 posts.

i though you were implying that i called other posters idiots, which i didnt. I said Herm was stupid and it is the truth. NO ONE will ever convince me otherwise. He is probably the worst coach in the NFL, but he and Peterson have a hard on for eachother.edit to add: Herm is an idiot. there I said it. Now you can accuse me of it and you will be telling the truth.

 

[thehornet]

YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.

This cliche makes zero sense here. There are several ways to play to win the game.If you're insinuating that the only way to play to win the game is to go for it, then I'm assuming that also means that teams should go for it on every 4th down, as they have the ball and a chance to score?!You kick the PAT there and take your chances in OT. It's not like the Chargers were lighting the world on fire.

exactly.

 

[BusterTBronco]

Idiot Patriots play for the OT instead of the win. They never get the ball back and lose the game. DUMB!

Consider this EXHIBIT B why Shanahan made the CORRECT decision!

 

[renesauz]

edit to add: Herm is an idiot. there I said it. Now you can accuse me of it and you will be telling the truth.

Fine if you believe that, but if you think that primarily because of this particular call, then you might as well call a bunch of us idiots for agreeing with the call Oddly enough, I agreed with Belichek NOT going for 2. Statisticly, his team dominated the game, and were only going to OT because of their own mostly unforced errors. Very different scenario.Look at it this way. Assume the 2 pt. conversion is a 50-50 proposition (because it generally is). Then, estimate your own odds of being the first to score in an OT. If it's better then 50%, you take 1. If less, you go for two.If you honestly believe that the Chiefs had better then a 50% chance to win in OT...then I really don't know what to say other then I strongly disagree. Conversely, if you thnk the Pats had less then a 50% chance to win, I would also strongly disagree.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I think they had exactly a 50% chance to win in OT. Both defenses were worn out so the winner of the flip was probably going to win the game. The odds that Favre would throw the game away were probably no greater than Cassel doing it.

Compare that to Randy Moss posting up in the end zone which I consider a greater than 50% proposition from the XP line and the Pats made the wrong choice.

 

[renesauz]

I think they had exactly a 50% chance to win in OT. Both defenses were worn out so the winner of the flip was probably going to win the game. The odds that Favre would throw the game away were probably no greater than Cassel doing it. Compare that to Randy Moss posting up in the end zone which I consider a greater than 50% proposition from the XP line and the Pats made the wrong choice.

How many big drives did the Jets have in the scond half? I only remember one. Granted, it was their last drive, but it was still only one. Only Belichek could know how tired his defense was, and whether they had enough in them. Based on what I saw, I would have thougt they did. Heck....blown coverage allowed Favre to convert a 3rd and 16 in OT. Conversely, how many times had the Jets actually stopped the Pats in the second half?