Am I the only one who would have preferred we just let them in once it was 1st and Goal from the 1? I trust Mahomes to drive down for the win a hell of a lot more than I trust our defense to get 4 stops in a row.
I'm sure a coach would get destroyed if they did it and made it obvious, but it sure feels like Mahomes changes the equation there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
Yes. Because the refs were trying to assist the Fade once again.
The no call on intentional grounding, would have been 4th and long. False Start on the Witten TD too. Same old BS.
Let them score.
However, we might have left too much time on the clock had we done that.
LOL
It was definitely intentional grounding. I think it would've been 3rd and long but still you are right about that horrible no call.
The play that happened before that where they called Jones for offsides when they almost fumbled it away to us, it looked to me like Jones just had a great jump on the snap. Yeah in super slow motion he was a hair early but they did the same thing to the Chiefs earlier in the game and they didn't call it. I've noticed the refs allow NFL offenses to false start a lot now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lcarus:
refs allow NFL offenses to false start a lot now.
I noticed it a lot of times last night Remmers would be up and backpedaling early. I kept expecting a flag to fly in and the play to be dead, but they kept on. [Reply]
Originally Posted by loochy:
I noticed it a lot of times last night Remmers would be up and backpedaling early. I kept expecting a flag to fly in and the play to be dead, but they kept on.
I'd have to slow it down to super slow mo, but I THINK it's one of those where they'll let it go if the guy starts moving simultaneously to the ball (where most players get off a split second after). You'll occasionally see some pass rushers who look very offside get away with it for the same reason. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
I would have declined the false start and not even try to stop them the play before.
Swallow your pride and determine what is the most probable outcome. Stopping a team on 1st in goal or giving the best QB in the league the ball to score at least 3 pts. It was the easiest decision ever and Reid botched it. It ended up not mattering but making the correct decision is important. Reid needs to get better at tactical football and time management. He schemes up the best offense in the game, but thats always been his problem. Clock mgmt and these situations.
We had a chance to make a stop with a bailout of getting the ball back with plenty of time where all we needed was a FG to stay in it. Reid made a great call. And if the refs didn't fuck us twice on missed calls, good chance we ended the game on that drive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Just stick to betting. Football isn't simple math and you don't seem to ever understand that.
It's always about probability. The chance you stop the Raiders from scoring a TD from 1st and goal inside the 5 are very very low. The risk in trying to do so is they take too long is you get the ball back with 30 seconds left. Had the Raiders tried to run again instead of getting it into Witten Chiefs have to burn another TO or let the clock run. Quite frankly we were fortunate they got the PI penalty. That could have been a disaster should they have barely got the first down and it was 1st and 10 from the 11 or something. They would have had the ability to utilize the entire clock.
We've lost that way before to the Patriots if I recall. There is this old archaic thinking that it's bad look for your football team and that you need to be able to muscle down and win that battle in the trenches no matter what. If you let them score that your defense will be demoralized. If that will bother your team more than putting them in the best position to win the game you have some serious locker room problems.
We are being results oriented if we say those decisions were okay. We are so fortunate to have Mahomes, who as it turns out struck very quickly. I have no idea what the Raiders were doing playing more of a prevent defense on the last drive, either, but I'd like to thank the holy ghost for that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
We had a chance to make a stop with a bailout of getting the ball back with plenty of time where all we needed was a FG to stay in it. Reid made a great call. And if the refs didn't **** us twice on missed calls, good chance we ended the game on that drive.
Originally Posted by jerryaldini:
I was glad when Breeland got the PI to set them up quick, otherwise Gruden runs it down. Thats how confident I felt in Mahomes
I keep seeing people say this.
It was 3rd & 10. I know the defense didn’t play well, but there’s a good chance they get a stop on 4th & 10. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I keep seeing people say this.
It was 3rd & 10. I know the defense didn’t play well, but there’s a good chance they get a stop on 4th & 10.
When it's 3rd and 10 yeah you need to try to stop them. But you are in an area where the best options are to 1) let them score or 2) stop them in their tracks. The absolute worst case scenario is if they barely get a first down which would have milked way way more clock. So the PI to the one yard line wasn't the worst thing that could happen. But the most egregious coaching decisions moving forward from that point were TRYING TO stop them at that point (we stuffed them on 1st and goal) and then we didn't decline the false start. The false start could have been genius if it was intentional and something I can see a Belichick team doing if they had a good offense.
To simplify the equation, just let them score.
What are the chances you win the game by your defense there?
What are the chances you lose the game because you didn't allow enough time?
What are the chances with four downs and 2min+ does Patrick Mahomes and Co go down the field and score at least 3 pts? It's really high especially when teams go prevent at the end of the game to protect against the TD vs the FG.
We have one of the best offenses in the history of football.
Originally Posted by BWillie:
It's always about probability. The chance you stop the Raiders from scoring a TD from 1st and goal inside the 5 are very very low. The risk in trying to do so is they take too long is you get the ball back with 30 seconds left. Had the Raiders tried to run again instead of getting it into Witten Chiefs have to burn another TO or let the clock run. Quite frankly we were fortunate they got the PI penalty. That could have been a disaster should they have barely got the first down and it was 1st and 10 from the 11 or something. They would have had the ability to utilize the entire clock.
We've lost that way before to the Patriots if I recall. There is this old archaic thinking that it's bad look for your football team and that you need to be able to muscle down and win that battle in the trenches no matter what. If you let them score that your defense will be demoralized. If that will bother your team more than putting them in the best position to win the game you have some serious locker room problems.
We are being results oriented if we say those decisions were okay. We are so fortunate to have Mahomes, who as it turns out struck very quickly. I have no idea what the Raiders were doing playing more of a prevent defense on the last drive, either, but I'd like to thank the holy ghost for that.
The Raiders were having trouble with subs, they almost got a 12-man penalty earlier in the game. They had no choice, the Chiefs weren't letting them play packages.
Furthermore, we needed a FG to tie.
Your way of looking at things doesn't have any context at all. Football is not a roulette wheel. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The Raiders were having trouble with subs, they almost got a 12-man penalty earlier in the game. They had no choice, the Chiefs weren't letting them play packages.
Furthermore, we needed a FG to tie.
Your way of looking at things doesn't have any context at all. Football is not a roulette wheel.
I agree that the hurry-up and two minute drill type of offense limited the Raiders ability to play certain packages. Which makes you wonder why we don't just run the hurry-up all the time vs teams like this. The Raiders like to disguise their coverages to try to confuse Mahomes and like to run elaborate coverages on certain situations which require subs and time. If we play them again, lets make it a track meet. If that means having to sub in Deiter & Kemp at times, so be it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
LET PATRICK MAHOMES WIN FOOTBALL GAMES
They did that. If the Chiefs ever got into a situation where they started to worry they wouldn't get the ball back in a bailout, maybe then you consider letting them in. But odds were very good that if we didn't make a stop, we'd get the ball back with time. Easy decision for Reid to try to win the game twice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
They did that. If the Chiefs ever got into a situation where they started to worry they wouldn't get the ball back in a bailout, maybe then you consider letting them in. But odds were very good that if we didn't make a stop, we'd get the ball back with time. Easy decision for Reid to try to win the game twice.
Letting them score eliminates the very real possibility though that Mahomes doesn't get the ball back....and it's happened before. [Reply]