Andy Reid got depantsed in the Super Bowl by Bruce Arians.
Bruce Fucking Arians and Tom Fucking Brady.
Well, you see, Andy Reid is an offensive genius, and how dare we question Andy Reid's genius in not running the ball and not utilizing the screen pass in the face of an epically brutal pass rush, a patchwork offensive line and a QB with a hurt toe?
How dare we question his geniusness?
__________________
Oh, and Spags? The "great Brady Killer"? They had his defense figured out by the 2nd quarter and he couldn't adjust it. He was Bob Sutton Jr. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Well it's been there and the Patriots SB was when it really started. Dunno what to tell you if you didn't hear about it before here because the rest of us sure did (and Philly fans were all too happy to tell us about it and how Kelly was the hero they deserved).
And it's just so silly because it just ignores basic math. When a guy needs two scores, you can't just say 'focus on saving time for the 2nd one' nor can you put all your attention on the 1st one. It's a combined probability thing.
If you're the head coach in that situation you have to do everything you can to increase that final number in the equation. You don't do everything you can to get the 1st score if it puts the odds of the 2nd score down to 0%. Nor can you focus entirely on getting the 2nd if it puts the odds on the first unreasonably low.
It's all about balancing those 2 probabilities because in the end, you gotta combine them. And when you're looking at a situation where best case scenario you have about a 60% chance of getting the 1st score and a maybe 20% chance of getting the 2nd score, you're looking at a likely best possible odds situation of about 10-15% that you manage to get them both; basic combined probability.
So when that's the set of numbers you're looking at, how can just about any approach be seen as categorically wrong? You may have done it differently, but that doesn't make you right. It doesn't make you wrong. When you're looking at long odds either direction, at best you're talking about 2 approaches that are equally arguable. Which is where I get to my "just about every coach is equally adept at it" argument - because it's largely a crapshoot in most instance anyway and it's virtually always an outcome controlled by execution.
That's why I say so much of this is rearview mirror rationalizing. The folks that do it wait until after it's decided and then say 'well he failed so clearly he screwed up...'. No, he failed because his odds of success were staggeringly long anyway. And maybe a different approach yields a couple percentage points in either direction, but maybe not. That's why it's so damn ridiculous to just take it as faith that "Andy screwed up the clock again..."
In both situations, Reid scored a TD and had 3 timeouts left with a chance to get the ball back in one of two ways. When the mountain you had to climb was a 2 score deficit with 5-6 minutes left against a team that's trying to milk the clock and keep balls in front of them, what the hell else can you ask for? What set of miracle decisions could've been made that would've been obviously accurate and obviously better than the ones he made? Those are the questions you have to ask and the answer are almost always "uhhh......"
That's the kind of crap that creates the narrative. Then people just move the goalposts anytime he loses. He loses the Colts game "Andy's too aggressive!!!!" He loses the Titans game "Andy's too passive!!!!"
And the monster continues to feed itself regardless of what happens. When a Reid team loses a game that they had a lead in the 2nd half - It's Andy's fault because he was either too aggressive or not aggressive enough. When Reid's team loses a game that he didn't have a lead in the 2nd half, who cares about the fact that his team had been outplayed to that point? It's still because Reid just didn't manage the clock right; couldn't just be that the other team was better that day (and the Patriots were undeniably better in both of those Pats post-season losses).
It's just bitching for the sake of bitching.
While I don't agree with everything you've said I do agree that those pitfalls for HC's exist including our own. You're last remark is particularly interesting to me because at the end of the day, if the Chiefs lose, I go back to considering who was the better team that day. If we were outplayed but missed an opportunity, that's usually how I view the loss...didn't deserve to win. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Where is this national media narrative that Andy's offense is great the first 5 weeks but sucks the rest of the year? Last year? Alex Smith?
That's my guess, Mr. KChiefs1. They're referring to last year's slump because they have an assistant who writes down stuff for them that reads, "Say this right here. It will make you sound smarter than you really are."
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Well it's been there and the Patriots SB was when it really started. Dunno what to tell you if you didn't hear about it before here because the rest of us sure did (and Philly fans were all too happy to tell us about it and how Kelly was the hero they deserved).
And it's just so silly because it just ignores basic math. When a guy needs two scores, you can't just say 'focus on saving time for the 2nd one' nor can you put all your attention on the 1st one. It's a combined probability thing.
If you're the head coach in that situation you have to do everything you can to increase that final number in the equation. You don't do everything you can to get the 1st score if it puts the odds of the 2nd score down to 0%. Nor can you focus entirely on getting the 2nd if it puts the odds on the first unreasonably low.
It's all about balancing those 2 probabilities because in the end, you gotta combine them. And when you're looking at a situation where best case scenario you have about a 60% chance of getting the 1st score and a maybe 20% chance of getting the 2nd score, you're looking at a likely best possible odds situation of about 10-15% that you manage to get them both; basic combined probability.
So when that's the set of numbers you're looking at, how can just about any approach be seen as categorically wrong? You may have done it differently, but that doesn't make you right. It doesn't make you wrong. When you're looking at long odds either direction, at best you're talking about 2 approaches that are equally arguable. Which is where I get to my "just about every coach is equally adept at it" argument - because it's largely a crapshoot in most instance anyway and it's virtually always an outcome controlled by execution.
That's why I say so much of this is rearview mirror rationalizing. The folks that do it wait until after it's decided and then say 'well he failed so clearly he screwed up...'. No, he failed because his odds of success were staggeringly long anyway. And maybe a different approach yields a couple percentage points in either direction, but maybe not. That's why it's so damn ridiculous to just take it as faith that "Andy screwed up the clock again..."
In both situations, Reid scored a TD and had 3 timeouts left with a chance to get the ball back in one of two ways. When the mountain you had to climb was a 2 score deficit with 5-6 minutes left against a team that's trying to milk the clock and keep balls in front of them, what the hell else can you ask for? What set of miracle decisions could've been made that would've been obviously accurate and obviously better than the ones he made? Those are the questions you have to ask and the answer are almost always "uhhh......"
That's the kind of crap that creates the narrative. Then people just move the goalposts anytime he loses. He loses the Colts game "Andy's too aggressive!!!!" He loses the Titans game "Andy's too passive!!!!"
And the monster continues to feed itself regardless of what happens. When a Reid team loses a game that they had a lead in the 2nd half - It's Andy's fault because he was either too aggressive or not aggressive enough. When Reid's team loses a game that he didn't have a lead in the 2nd half, who cares about the fact that his team had been outplayed to that point? It's still because Reid just didn't manage the clock right; couldn't just be that the other team was better that day (and the Patriots were undeniably better in both of those Pats post-season losses).
It's just bitching for the sake of bitching.
There are plenty of reasons why teams lose. But the playoffs are a time when 1-2 coaching decisions can make a big difference. If Reid felt "onsides of bust" it's a strange strategy as is, but even stranger to burn all clock on the first drive. The defense couldn't stop anybody. But the % chance of them coming up with a big stop is a hell of a lot higher than the % of onsides kicks (especially ones the other team knows is coming) that convert. It was a strange decision all-around. It's not just the Philly media market driving the narrative. When Reid did this in the Super Bowl, a confused bellichick and his assistants looked at each other and said "We’re up 10 right? We’re not missing something here?” [Reply]
If Andy has no flaws, and everything is predicated upon talent and execution, then I say good luck building that roster of 22 All-Stars!
Because that s*** happens everyday in this league! [Reply]
No more AS11 but I still want to see Andy being aggressive with a lead. I find it hard to believe that defenses suddenly adjust to this offense well into the 4th Q. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Claysexual:
If Andy has no flaws, and everything is predicated upon talent and execution, then I say good luck building that roster of 22 All-Stars!
Because that s*** happens everyday in this league!
Execution has everything to do with coaching. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Execution has everything to do with coaching.
I didn't read all the posts, so.. Reid lost 3 playoff games simply because he almost completely abandoned the running game. Even with our top 2 running backs being injured in the Indy game, all he had to do was eat as much clock as possible with each second half possession, and we leave with a win.
Then against the Steelers and Titans he didn't even try to run the ball. Against Pittsburgh we had just 12 true running plays (Smith scrambles are not true runs) and lost by 2 after having the lead in the second half.
Against Tennessee once again we had 12 true running plays and lost by 1 after having the lead in the second half. And to make it worse, Kareem Hunt led the NFL in rushing and we handed the ball to him only 11 times.
Players weren't perfect in these three playoff losses, but we lost all of them directly due to Reid's piss poor game planning and play calling, and trash clock management.
Reid is such a joke in the playoffs that when asked to pick playoff game winners anonymous GMs made jokes to the media about "Bad Andy" not running the ball in the playoffs. And when he was canned in Philly, some Eagles fans visited Chiefsplanet just to let us know why they weren't sad to see him leave, for this exact reason.
Doing it once is a learning experience. Doing it 3 times in 5 years is bad coaching. And there was this stat: Only 4 teams in the Super Bowl era have given up 18 point second half leads in losing efforts in the playoffs. 2 OF THOSE 4 TEAMS ARE THE ANDY REID COACHED KANSAS CITY CHIEFS.
