Bad Coaching Thread: Matt Eberflus canned like chunk light tuna
Here's the last line from the box score of yesterday's Loiusville - Kentucky game.
UK TD 0:28
STEVE JOHNSON 57 YD PASS FROM ANDRE' WOODSON
(LONES SEIBER KICK)
Drive info: 8 plays, 74 yards.
UL 34 UK 40
SF's 3rd and 4 after the two minute warning was basically for the game. If they convert and stay in bounds they get 2 downs where the Chiefs can't stop the clock.
So they kick a FG with like 20-25 seconds left. This version of the Chiefs aren't driving down for a FG with that much time and no TOs.
It sucks for SF settling for a long FG. But I think it's the right play if they can't get a first down running the ball.
SF playcall on third and 4 should have been made with 4 down territory in mind. Chiefs did the right thing by bringing everyone because even a td doesnt kill them
Really feels like the only reason people are shitting on Kyle is cuz of how it played out but if you defer, chefs score a td, you score a td, then chefs get a walkoff field goal people are shitting on you for deferring
Which would be another strike against Kyle because a TD-TD-FG sequence should never happen.
The great thing is that it's at least an argument now, whereas before it was a gigantic benefit to go first.
You're welcome btw for the :13 second game changing the rules, even though no one had a problem when Bardy did it to Mahomes 3 years earlier.
The NFL OT rules have always been stupid as ****. You can make fun of college for being a gimmick, but at least it has been far more fair.
I'd prefer them to play like a 20 minute period (figure out the appropriate time to mitigate an advantage with getting the ball first) with best score winning and then do something like college to break it if necessary. I don't want some ****ing coin toss deciding the biggest game of the season. It's a lot better than it was but still can be improved.
And the regular season OT rules are a joke because 10 minutes just means the first team can bleed 7-8 minutes of clock. Happens way too often.
SF's 3rd and 4 after the two minute warning was basically for the game. If they convert and stay in bounds they get 2 downs where the Chiefs can't stop the clock.
So they kick a FG with like 20-25 seconds left. This version of the Chiefs aren't driving down for a FG with that much time and no TOs.
It sucks for SF settling for a long FG. But I think it's the right play if they can't get a first down running the ball.
When I was watching I was thinking it would be perfect for an "INT or bust" defense, that is ignore tackling and go for the ball, conceding the score if the 9ers are dumb enough to run into the end zone with the ball. At least you have chance to tie in regulation.
SF playcall on third and 4 should have been made with 4 down territory in mind. Chiefs did the right thing by bringing everyone because even a td doesnt kill them
Yeah if they run it on 3rd down, make the Chiefs burn a TO, then convert a 4th and 2 or whatever, it's basically a win or a tie at worst if Moody misses.
Nah going for it on 4th and 4 was correct. Even making the field goal, which was not close to a guarantee, doesn’t put them in a great spot when Mahomes has four downs, two timeouts, and two minutes. Reminded me of the Bills spot against the Chiefs in the playoffs. Thought they should have gone for that, too. But that was a closer decision because they were trailing by 3.
Yeah I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone for it on 4th, just saying as it played out if they convert on 3rd (or 4th if they took it), it's freeroll for the game. And Moody seemed locked in.
The NFL OT rules have always been stupid as ****. You can make fun of college for being a gimmick, but at least it has been far more fair.
Playoff NFL OT rules are more fair than college now.
In college there's a huge advantage to going second (unless you're Deion, and then the press gives you a pass becuase they're in love with you).
In the NFL it's a much closer decision.
When I was watching I was thinking it would be perfect for an "INT or bust" defense, that is ignore tackling and go for the ball, conceding the score if the 9ers are dumb enough to run into the end zone with the ball. At least you have chance to tie in regulation.
100%. I was thinking why not send all 11 players? The 9ers probably wouldn't go down at the 1, because you'd still be leaving Mahomes some time.
But if the 9ers had run it on 3rd down, then converted a 4th down, they rs could bleed the entire clock and kick a FG. So in that case it would be 100% correct for them to not score.
I was really worried SF would do what KC did to the Eagles last year and run out the clock before kicking a FG. They were really close.
Yeah the current NFL OT rules are reasonably fair. Im sure the league office tried to get something as close to 50/50 as possible with the coin toss. Was probably too harsh on Shanahan after thinking about it more. Still think I’d lean toward getting the ball second.
100%. I was thinking why not send all 11 players? The 9ers probably wouldn't go down at the 1, because you'd still be leaving Mahomes some time.
But if the 9ers had run it on 3rd down, then converted a 4th down, they rs could bleed the entire clock and kick a FG. So in that case it would be 100% correct for them to not score.
I was really worried SF would do what KC did to the Eagles last year and run out the clock before kicking a FG. They were really close.
Eagles tried to do this and McKinnon correctly went down at the 1. They didn’t do a good job of selling it. Think even the 49ers would know to get down.
My idea was that if the first team to get the ball in OT scores, the 2nd team has to beat (not tie) that score. So the first team can win with a TD+2. But if they miss, they lose to a TD+1. Still probably a big advantage to going first and going for 2 though.
The math is really clear that the first TD shouldn't go for 2, and was posted above in the thread. You lose basically every time that you fail, but don't win every time that you convert. So given a 50/50 2pc, you lose more often than you win, whereas if you kick and the other team goes for 2, you lose and win equally often.
And the Chiefs already said that they had discussed it and knew before the game that they would go for 2 on an OT answer TD.
Eagles tried to do this and McKinnon correctly went down at the 1. They didn’t do a good job of selling it. Think even the 49ers would know to get down.
If they had run it on 3rd and made the Chiefs burn a TO, then converted on 4th down, yes, totally correct not to score.
But if they converted on 3rd, the Chiefs still had two TOs, let's see:
2 minute warning
- 5 seconds to run third down play (convert in bounds)
- TO
- 4 seconds to run first down play (McCaffrey off tackle or something)
- TO
- 4 seconds to run second down play
- 39 seconds of clock running
- 4 seconds to run third down play
- 39 seconds of clock running
- 3 seconds to kick FG
= 22 seconds left at the kickoff
Hmmm, I think Mahomes mystique might have bought us them not kneeling at the 1 there. But it would have been a mistake imo.
Still think the calls on 2nd and 4 and 3rd and 4 and not going for it on 4th down were worse.
I just did a tree on excel.
Touchdown percentage: 22%
Field goal percentage: 16%
Two point: 50%
When 49ers make a FG on first drive:
KC TD: 25%
KC FG: 20%
When 49ers score a TD on first drive:
KC TD: 30%
2 Pt: 50%
It slightly favored the 49ers but my scoring percentages are probably low all around given how tired the defenses were. Also, didn’t factor in turnovers. Think my KC percentages after a score are proba
yep the regulation call to kick the FG was way, way worse
being overshadowed by the talking heads today looks like
When SF didn't go for the TD I knew the game was likely over and was screaming at my TV. It's all or nothing at that point. Have some ****ing balls. I also would have gone for 2 if they scored a TD because you know KC will.
i don't see any team ever doing this. aside from dan campbell of course.
My idea was that if the first team to get the ball in OT scores, the 2nd team has to beat (not tie) that score. So the first team can win with a TD+2. But if they miss, they lose to a TD+1. Still probably a big advantage to going first and going for 2 though.
so first team gets FG, the second team has to get a TD?
Holy **** that would have been amazing.
I bet we save that Hardman play for the 2pt conversion in that case, and run something else to try to score the TD.
Not going for two is the equivalent to ICM suicide in poker.
Especially in a situation where between both teams the last 7 drives all resulted in scores.
If we assume the PAT is automatic (thanks to Moody we know it isn't) and the chance for the other team to score on the next possession is only 50% (which is probably way too low considering how tired the defenses are and from how far the kickers converted) and we assume that we win it at 80% probability if the other team doesn't score after our PAT, going for two is still the correct play if we convert that 40% of the time. Average 2pt conversation rate is 47.5%.
Yeah it's like end of game but with the old old OT rules where a FG wins it, and you know the other team is going to win the toss. Have to go for 2 there.
You're welcome btw for the :13 second game changing the rules, even though no one had a problem when Bardy did it to Mahomes 3 years earlier.
lol at "no one had a problem." I'd imagine quite a few people did.
I don't think Reid would have gone for two on the second TD if SF had scored a TD. It's just not in his DNA.
le sigh
The math is really clear that the first TD shouldn't go for 2, and was posted above in the thread. You lose basically every time that you fail
You lose basically every time you fail???? The other team is scoring a TD and making the PAT basically every time???
People in KC hated it when Mahomes never never touched the ball in OT, but the (Bristol-centric) national sports punditry barely brought it up. The Chiefs even proposed changing the rule after 2018, which the NFL shot down.
Fast forward to the :13 second game, the national media goes bananas screaming that it's not fair that Josh Allen never got to touch the ball, and the rule gets changed.
WE TRIED TO CHANGE THE RULE BEFORE MFERS!
You lose basically every time you fail???? The other team is scoring a TD and making the PAT basically every time???
Sorry, shorthand. We are assuming only the universe where the other team scores an answering TD. The times when they fail means our PAT decision was meaningless. Similar to how the analysis on whether to go for 2 after a TD when we were down 14 late should only focus on outcomes when we score another subsequent TD and opp doesn't score again, b/c otherwise it's moot.
So let's play PAT at 100% and 2PC at 50%, which is close enough. If we kick first, we win 50% and lose 50% of those trials where opp answers and goes for 2. So we win 50% of the time.
If we go for 2 first, we succeed half the time. Of those, half the time our opp succeeds as well, and we go into sudden death with the ball. The other half, we lose to their PAT.
So EVEN IF WE WIN SUDDEN DEATH 100% OF THE TIME, that only breaks even with kicking first. Winning any less than 100% in sudden death makes going for 2 first a loser.
Now, there may be crazy outliers where a team has an injured kicker or is for some reason WAY more likely to make a 2PC than their opponent. But the huge majority of the time, going for 2 after the initial TD is just idiotic, just like it would be in college for the team that scores first.
