not sure if this was posted in other threads but just came across this and it’s pretty good listen. I think it speaks pretty well to how cold blooded the Chiefs are. Coin Toss - ( New Window )
I still don't think their is anything wrong with the niners taking the ball first.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
What does this have anything to do with saying the Chiefs
I still don't think their is anything wrong with the niners taking the ball first.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
I'm with you and we're very much in the minority opinion.
I don't know what Shanahan has explained for his decision, but I thought the 9ers D needed to rest and re-organize. And they had it right as the moved right down the field and into scoring position.
They had first and ten from the Chiefs 15. McCaffrey got six yards to make it second and four. At that point, IMV, there is a lot of room to second guess play-calling.
But it still comes down to execution, right? And if the right side of the OL could have blocked Jones on back-to-back plays (before the FG), perhaps the circumstances and outcome are much different.
You can’t take the ball first thinking about the 3rd possession of overtime. The team who defers has the advantage. They know what they have to do and therefore have an extra down. If the Niners were to have scored a touchdown the chiefs would have gone for 2. Taking the ball first is wrong and there’s no way to justify it.
You can’t take the ball first thinking about the 3rd possession of overtime. The team who defers has the advantage. They know what they have to do and therefore have an extra down. If the Niners were to have scored a touchdown the chiefs would have gone for 2. Taking the ball first is wrong and there’s no way to justify it.
Maybe iShanahan felt his D was gassed and needed the breather. If he felt his D wouldn’t be able to stop KC to start the OT, I think that’s a justification for taking the ball first.
it’s why I have such a problem when people shit on analytics - you’ve got no idea if that was the deciding factor and analytics doesn’t taking into account things like fatigue, morale, etc.
it’s why I have such a problem when people shit on analytics - you’ve got no idea if that was the deciding factor and analytics doesn’t taking into account things like fatigue, morale, etc.
Exactly. It's never just a clean decision. No matter how hard they try to science/math out everything in sports, the human element has a way of interfering with predictability.
I like having the most information possible, but I wouldn't want to be held hostage by it.
RE: RE: Taking the ball first is wrong in a billion ways
You can’t take the ball first thinking about the 3rd possession of overtime. The team who defers has the advantage. They know what they have to do and therefore have an extra down. If the Niners were to have scored a touchdown the chiefs would have gone for 2. Taking the ball first is wrong and there’s no way to justify it.
Maybe iShanahan felt his D was gassed and needed the breather. If he felt his D wouldn’t be able to stop KC to start the OT, I think that’s a justification for taking the ball first.
Their defense was totally gassed after Shannahan stopped running the ball and left his D hanging out to dry after mostly 3 n outs for the whole 2nd half.
Every time
Not Every possession results in a TD.
The TD possession is the only result that favors the team getting the ball 2nd.
And even then who is to say the first team doesn't score a TD...
Seems kind of bizarre to me that folks second guess that.
If you want to second guess anything its why Shanahan went away from the run.
They were dominant with it for 3 Qs...
Already said that he took the ball first because his team would have the ball if it went to a third possession in sudden death.
You gave the advantage to Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid.
There is no way this was a good decision. Comments about "not every drive ends in a TD" is more reason to kick it away. The narrative about the defense being tired is also silly.
They had plenty of rest before they would've been back on the field. The last K.C. drive in regulation took 1:50 off the clock, and they took two timeouts. Then you had a kick, SF offense coming on the field, a kneel down, and then the TV timeout after regulation, all of the intermediate stuff with the OT rules explanation and the coin toss, before finally a kickoff.
Shanahan did say they decided taking the ball first was the best way to go even before the playoffs, and that this decision was made with the analytics department. To be fair, he also alluded to his defense being on the field a long time before that, but that wasn't the primary reason, he sort of threw that in at the end.
The defense had plenty of time to catch their win between the final Chiefs FG and what would've been taking the field after the kickoff following the OT coin toss.
You see Andy Reid happy they have the ball 2nd, Mahomes elated, Kelce happy...you're giving an assassin the advantage. Starting with 9:02 left in the 3rd Quarter, the Chiefs had gone FG, Punt, TD, FG with their 4 possessions.
If as Shanny claims, he felt it was a FG game, again, all the more reason to put the Chiefs in the tough spot, perhaps taking the FG with the first possession if you can get it to 4th down, and now you play to win.
Kurt Warner was on the Rich Eisen podcast and was saying how you play to win in the 4th quarter, referring to Shanny going for it on 4th and 3 at the KC 15 with 12:46 to go in the 4th down by 3 points where you could've just tied it there with a chip shot FG. But then you play for a third possession and a POSSIBLE sudden death giving Patrick Mahomes knowing what he needs to do to win the game?
As Warner articulates (as I did in the thread the day after the Super Bowl), if you kick to KC to start OT, you're not thinking about a third possession, you're taking the ball to win the game on the 2nd possession. Win or lose, we're going to take the ball and score.
No one yet has made giving Andy Reid and Patrick freaking Mahomes the last chance to win the game with the ball in his hands make sense. Because it just doesn't.
And if you are going to play for a third possession and sudden death, then GO FOR IT on 4th and 4 from the 9 in OT. Play for the win. You get the FG and so friggin' what? You have to play defense against the best in the game and cross your fingers? Make it stop.
I still don't think their is anything wrong with the niners taking the ball first.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
it is a big difference in how you play your first possession. Huge benefit to the deferring team
Every time
Not Every possession results in a TD.
The TD possession is the only result that favors the team getting the ball 2nd.
And even then who is to say the first team doesn't score a TD...
Seems kind of bizarre to me that folks second guess that.
If you want to second guess anything its why Shanahan went away from the run.
They were dominant with it for 3 Qs...
wrong, FG has similar impact as a TD. You have 4 non-punting downs to get into FG range. If you stop them, then you only need a FG.
I don't think this is cut and dry. Very reasonable points to both
I really thought the SF Defense needed time which sounded logical and, quite frankly, if true the trump card I would put over any other reason to take the ball first. But it does sound like it wasn't their primary reason afterall.
I've noticed that most people who don't have a problem with the decision think it's a tough call and that there are good arguments either way. Meanwhile, most who are against it speak in absolutes - that it was 100% the wrong call and that it is completely unreasonable to choose to receive first with the rules set up the way they are.
That alone makes me think the first group of people are probably right.
I still don't think their is anything wrong with the niners taking the ball first.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
If I had Joe Montana, sure, take the ball second.
And not a knock on Purdy, whom I like a ton. But it would feel like a ton of pressure if KC did score a TD to have to match it.
Niners nearly didn't convert 3rd down on that first drive anyway.
It's so nonsensical that everybody thinks that the decision was awful because the Niners lost.
Had the Niners managed to take that 2nd and 14 on defense (on the Chiefs winning drive) and forced a 3rd and 14....and won the game on a 4th down stop (which was 4th and 1 in real life), then what???
I agree and that goes back to my original point - one team looked completely in sync and ready to go from top to bottom and the other seemed disoriented. Someone asked last week what impact it has if the player doesn’t know that rule and I think this video sums it up well.
He specifically said he didn't know the rule where even if the 9ers scored a TD the game was not over.
Exactly. I confess I didn't know it either, and I thought CBS (and the ref) did a poor job explaining it. Once I realized what the rule was I had the same "Oh shit" moment that Juszczyk's face reflected.
You can’t take the ball first thinking about the 3rd possession of overtime. The team who defers has the advantage. They know what they have to do and therefore have an extra down. If the Niners were to have scored a touchdown the chiefs would have gone for 2. Taking the ball first is wrong and there’s no way to justify it.
All taking the ball second does is inform the outcome of the previous possession. So you know what happens if you punt if the other team scored. So it takes that what if scenario out of play and forces you down a certain path. It still comes down to the execution whether you take the ball first or second.
And you can't discount the human factor, you don't there is a difference with Mahomes with the ball down 3 vs Purdy?
It's not that black and white either. Say the chiefs had a 4th and 7 at the 30. Do you kick the fg knowing that all the niners need is a fg to win or do you go for the tie and hope your D holds?
I'll say it again, Mahomes makes it look so easy it seems like a no brainer to take the ball first but with most teams not helmed by Mahomes, it's not so straightforward.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
I'm with you and we're very much in the minority opinion.
I don't know what Shanahan has explained for his decision, but I thought the 9ers D needed to rest and re-organize. And they had it right as the moved right down the field and into scoring position.
They had first and ten from the Chiefs 15. McCaffrey got six yards to make it second and four. At that point, IMV, there is a lot of room to second guess play-calling.
But it still comes down to execution, right? And if the right side of the OL could have blocked Jones on back-to-back plays (before the FG), perhaps the circumstances and outcome are much different.
Maybe iShanahan felt his D was gassed and needed the breather. If he felt his D wouldn’t be able to stop KC to start the OT, I think that’s a justification for taking the ball first.
Exactly. It's never just a clean decision. No matter how hard they try to science/math out everything in sports, the human element has a way of interfering with predictability.
I like having the most information possible, but I wouldn't want to be held hostage by it.
Quote:
You can’t take the ball first thinking about the 3rd possession of overtime. The team who defers has the advantage. They know what they have to do and therefore have an extra down. If the Niners were to have scored a touchdown the chiefs would have gone for 2. Taking the ball first is wrong and there’s no way to justify it.
Maybe iShanahan felt his D was gassed and needed the breather. If he felt his D wouldn’t be able to stop KC to start the OT, I think that’s a justification for taking the ball first.
Their defense was totally gassed after Shannahan stopped running the ball and left his D hanging out to dry after mostly 3 n outs for the whole 2nd half.
Not Every possession results in a TD.
The TD possession is the only result that favors the team getting the ball 2nd.
And even then who is to say the first team doesn't score a TD...
Seems kind of bizarre to me that folks second guess that.
If you want to second guess anything its why Shanahan went away from the run.
They were dominant with it for 3 Qs...
Not Every possession results in a TD.
Like around 90% of the drives earlier in the game even.
You gave the advantage to Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid.
There is no way this was a good decision. Comments about "not every drive ends in a TD" is more reason to kick it away. The narrative about the defense being tired is also silly.
They had plenty of rest before they would've been back on the field. The last K.C. drive in regulation took 1:50 off the clock, and they took two timeouts. Then you had a kick, SF offense coming on the field, a kneel down, and then the TV timeout after regulation, all of the intermediate stuff with the OT rules explanation and the coin toss, before finally a kickoff.
Shanahan did say they decided taking the ball first was the best way to go even before the playoffs, and that this decision was made with the analytics department. To be fair, he also alluded to his defense being on the field a long time before that, but that wasn't the primary reason, he sort of threw that in at the end.
The defense had plenty of time to catch their win between the final Chiefs FG and what would've been taking the field after the kickoff following the OT coin toss.
You see Andy Reid happy they have the ball 2nd, Mahomes elated, Kelce happy...you're giving an assassin the advantage. Starting with 9:02 left in the 3rd Quarter, the Chiefs had gone FG, Punt, TD, FG with their 4 possessions.
If as Shanny claims, he felt it was a FG game, again, all the more reason to put the Chiefs in the tough spot, perhaps taking the FG with the first possession if you can get it to 4th down, and now you play to win.
Kurt Warner was on the Rich Eisen podcast and was saying how you play to win in the 4th quarter, referring to Shanny going for it on 4th and 3 at the KC 15 with 12:46 to go in the 4th down by 3 points where you could've just tied it there with a chip shot FG. But then you play for a third possession and a POSSIBLE sudden death giving Patrick Mahomes knowing what he needs to do to win the game?
As Warner articulates (as I did in the thread the day after the Super Bowl), if you kick to KC to start OT, you're not thinking about a third possession, you're taking the ball to win the game on the 2nd possession. Win or lose, we're going to take the ball and score.
No one yet has made giving Andy Reid and Patrick freaking Mahomes the last chance to win the game with the ball in his hands make sense. Because it just doesn't.
And if you are going to play for a third possession and sudden death, then GO FOR IT on 4th and 4 from the 9 in OT. Play for the win. You get the FG and so friggin' what? You have to play defense against the best in the game and cross your fingers? Make it stop.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
Not Every possession results in a TD.
The TD possession is the only result that favors the team getting the ball 2nd.
And even then who is to say the first team doesn't score a TD...
Seems kind of bizarre to me that folks second guess that.
If you want to second guess anything its why Shanahan went away from the run.
They were dominant with it for 3 Qs...
I really thought the SF Defense needed time which sounded logical and, quite frankly, if true the trump card I would put over any other reason to take the ball first. But it does sound like it wasn't their primary reason afterall.
That alone makes me think the first group of people are probably right.
It honestly probably made more sense for the niners to want the ball first and the chiefs to want the ball second just based on the experience at QB and the make-up of their respective teams.
If I had Joe Montana, sure, take the ball second.
And not a knock on Purdy, whom I like a ton. But it would feel like a ton of pressure if KC did score a TD to have to match it.
Niners nearly didn't convert 3rd down on that first drive anyway.
It's so nonsensical that everybody thinks that the decision was awful because the Niners lost.
Had the Niners managed to take that 2nd and 14 on defense (on the Chiefs winning drive) and forced a 3rd and 14....and won the game on a 4th down stop (which was 4th and 1 in real life), then what???
Winners write history, unfortunately.
And those Chiefs players are arrogant AF, wow.
I agree and that goes back to my original point - one team looked completely in sync and ready to go from top to bottom and the other seemed disoriented. Someone asked last week what impact it has if the player doesn’t know that rule and I think this video sums it up well.
He specifically said he didn't know the rule where even if the 9ers scored a TD the game was not over.
Quote:
To me the look on his face says "We fucked up."
He specifically said he didn't know the rule where even if the 9ers scored a TD the game was not over.
Exactly. I confess I didn't know it either, and I thought CBS (and the ref) did a poor job explaining it. Once I realized what the rule was I had the same "Oh shit" moment that Juszczyk's face reflected.
All taking the ball second does is inform the outcome of the previous possession. So you know what happens if you punt if the other team scored. So it takes that what if scenario out of play and forces you down a certain path. It still comes down to the execution whether you take the ball first or second.
And you can't discount the human factor, you don't there is a difference with Mahomes with the ball down 3 vs Purdy?
It's not that black and white either. Say the chiefs had a 4th and 7 at the 30. Do you kick the fg knowing that all the niners need is a fg to win or do you go for the tie and hope your D holds?
I'll say it again, Mahomes makes it look so easy it seems like a no brainer to take the ball first but with most teams not helmed by Mahomes, it's not so straightforward.