In the middle of a shootout in one of the most 'statement' games we've played in his tenure here (on the road, no less), he lines up in a quasi-wildcat and has our backup halfback running an RPO and throwing to Kelce.

Pederson ran a damn creative play - no question. He also did it in the middle of the 3rd quarter and when they had a lead and the worst case scenario was giving the Patriots 99 yards to work with. Ballsy as hell, don't get me wrong, but NOTHING in Reid's entire history suggests he wouldn't polish off a play like that in a situation like that. Shit, as you've noted - he will occasionally do so to his own detriment.

Just another steaming helping of nonsense to shovel onto this dude's ever growing pile of it. Like I said - the guy really sucks at this.
[Reply]

Andy Reid has been to one SuperBowl. I'm not saying he's right but you're trying to argue something you can't prove.
[Reply]

You are making yourself look stupid, don't get mad when you get called on it.
[Reply]

I think he's roughly average at it. Frankly, I think the idea that some coaches 'can't manage a clock' is largely NFL talking head schlock.

As a general rule, 90% of all of these end game scenarios are going to handled extremely similarly by each and every coach. Some guys are a little more aggressive, others a little less. But when it comes down to it, the nearly universal truth is that the difference between someone who 'can't manage the clock' and someone who can, is simple execution by his players.

Harrison Butker hits a fieldgoal and Orson Charles catches a 5 yard pitch and catch - nobody says a word about Reid's clock management against the Titans because we won. If Reid dials up 4 downfield shots and they all fall incomplete and we punt against the Patriots - nobody says a word because we lost by 14.

It's almost always rearview mirror rationalizing and general bullshit used by writers to fill column inches and analysts to avoid dead air. And every time Reid does it well (and he did it very well in SD), he still gets abused for games being 'unnecessarily close' when his defense doesn't stop anyone. Within this thread alone Chiefzilla has criticized Reid for both being too aggressive and for playing prevent.

Like I said - it's always tailored to the outcome because its rearview mirror horseshit.
[Reply]

Well true...I can't prove it...just like no one can prove he would...

Do you see Reid running that play in the same circumstance? Can't imagine.
[Reply]

Dude, I'm not the one calling names...and I'm hardly mad. And most people in this thread seem to have the same opinion about Reids game day coaching skills so I think I'm OK with that...even if not...my opinion, that to my fear, will play itself out again this year.
[Reply]

Andy and Marty are both hell of football coaches. To win as much as they do, shows they are good coaches. Their playoff failures are because they never had the franchise QB to win in the playoffs. Turds like Alex Smith, Dave Kreig, Steve Bono, etc are not going to outkick their coverage when it the bright lights are really on.
[Reply]

So how did Reid earn this reputation? If 90% of all coaches pretty much handle these scenarios in the same manner, why would Reid have been labeled in such a way? I don't see a conspiracy against such an affable guy/head coach. He treats the press and the public well...don't see the motivation to take him down...maybe it just might be a valid criticism.
[Reply]

What?
[Reply]

I would this post, all day long.


[Reply]

You better back off my boi!
[Reply]

I've gone over this already - the guy was the head coach in Philadelphia and Philly fans aren't happy if they aren't complaining. Philly's a major media market that can easily drive a national narrative.

And when the guy just kept winning football games, the best excuse they could come up with was some nebulous bullshit like "he doesn't manage the clock" because it's the kind of thing you can say, sound relatively intelligent and never have to actually defend it because few people are going to actually call anyone on the carpet to defend the assertion.

For some weird reason they never got over the fact that he didn't manage to score 14 points in the last 5 minutes against the Patriots way back in 2004. That's when it really got loud and for the same stupid reasons - over-analysis by talking heads that don't have to actually defend the position. It's a lot easier to say "Man, Reid screwed up" when the Eagles lost than it is to say "Man, scoring 2 touchdowns in 5 minutes against a bombshell defense coached by the best defensive mind in football is really difficult."

It's an easy hit and run tactic for the intellectually lazy.
[Reply]

I've met eDave...he'll **** you up!!!
[Reply]

I know this is anecdotal but personally I don't remember hearing about Reid's inability to manage the clock when he came here. While I follow the Chiefs, I really don't have the time to follow the rest of the NFL much. My opinion of Reid isn't some narrative I've adopted; it's my own personal observations. I'm sure a number of CP folks here have had the same experience. When Reid came here I wanted to believe he was going to be the football messiah...last thing I wanted was to see something about him worth criticizing, but there it is.

I'll leave it at this; I hope you're right and I'm wrong...it would be stupid to want it otherwise...so we'll see what this season holds for us.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]