Week 15 NFL Gamethread

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,490
I’m fucking sick of ‘I’m fucking sick of’.

Who cares how you feel about it. You just named a non-contextual statistical fact to counter a contextual statistical fact. ‘Skill’ has nothing to do with splitting on 18 in the face of 7, but skill (and other context) has a lot to do with going it on 4th and whatever.

oo000uuuhö really? A blackjack reference? That’s relevant how?

im not even saying the game decisions were correct. But your emotions and blackjack analogies aren’t worth much.
Here, ready?

People look back on games and determine if it would have made sense to go for 2 or 1 based on the ensuing outcome.

Thats it.

It's retroactive bullshit at its finest. Revisionist history nonsense. As if the whole flow of a game wouldn't change based on the retroactively changed score.

But, really. It gives people the comfys. And makes them feel smart when they see a % sign. So much smarter than the dumb heathens of the last generation. Snake oil sales man taking advange of the upper middle class intelligence.

Whatever.
 
Last edited:

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
It feels like the Chargers are pretty high up on the "fuck we needed that one and they blew it" chart for important (for the Pats) matchups with the Broncos and now Chiefs over the past 10 or so years.

The good news is that they pretty much have never beaten the Pats in that time frame either, so at least they are consistently shitty and not spoilers.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,088
I didn’t watch the game but just reviewed the game log.

8 turnovers including downs. Seems like a masterclass on how to lose a winnable game by the Chargers
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,096
New York City
Sure and if they execute their offense they'd be up by 18-20. Just because you fail doesn't mean you didn't make the right choice. The expected points result of going for it on 4th and 1 at the 1 is higher than the expected points of kicking the FG, you should always go for that except at the very end of a game where you are down less than 3.
Part of the analytics is that if you go for it on 4th at the 1 and fail, it leaves your opponent on the 1 yard line. Brandy went for it with 2 seconds left on the clock. Inexcusable. It didn't leave the Chiefs on the 1, it just ended the half.

I love that you're defending this idiot because of "the book", especially after last night's shit show. The book is a guide, not gospel. Regardless, not taking the points before the half is stupid for a variety of reasons. The book ignores psychology. Football is not played by robots.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,663
Not sure the result would have been different, but Derwin James was a big loss for LA.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,166
Part of the analytics is that if you go for it on 4th at the 1 and fail, it leaves your opponent on the 1 yard line. Brandy went for it with 2 seconds left on the clock. Inexcusable. It didn't leave the Chiefs on the 1, it just ended the half.

I love that you're defending this idiot because of "the book", especially after last night's shit show. The book is a guide, not gospel. Regardless, not taking the points before the half is stupid for a variety of reasons. The book ignores psychology. Football is not played by robots.
Staley is one of my favorite coaches in the league. I like his aggressive approach. I’ll bet his players like it too. So while I agree that psychology needs to complement analytics, I don’t think that cuts the way you think it does. The Chargers’ players would’ve been confused and disappointed if Staley kicked a FG from the 2-yard line to go to halftime up 17-10, instead of going for the jugular. Since the analytics are essentially a wash in that spot, I think he was right to make the call that was consistent with the team’s philosophy and culture.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,031
Part of the analytics is that if you go for it on 4th at the 1 and fail, it leaves your opponent on the 1 yard line. Brandy went for it with 2 seconds left on the clock. Inexcusable. It didn't leave the Chiefs on the 1, it just ended the half.

I love that you're defending this idiot because of "the book", especially after last night's shit show. The book is a guide, not gospel. Regardless, not taking the points before the half is stupid for a variety of reasons. The book ignores psychology. Football is not played by robots.
It's not because it's "by the book" it's because it gives you the best chance to win. Yes usually pinning a team deep is part of the math on that, but in that case... it's 1 yard, you're moving the ball well, it doesn't matter to me if it's the half, you should have faith in your offense to get 1 yard when you need it if they just drove down the field. I'm defending the decisions to go for it in many of these, but I'm also criticizing the coach for his playcalling.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,452
Philadelphia
Part of the analytics is that if you go for it on 4th at the 1 and fail, it leaves your opponent on the 1 yard line. Brandy went for it with 2 seconds left on the clock. Inexcusable. It didn't leave the Chiefs on the 1, it just ended the half.

I love that you're defending this idiot because of "the book", especially after last night's shit show. The book is a guide, not gospel. Regardless, not taking the points before the half is stupid for a variety of reasons. The book ignores psychology. Football is not played by robots.
You probably convert that on 4th and goal from the 1 like 60-70% of the time so you're talking about 4.2-4.9 expected points versus 3 for the FG. You are simply leaving points on the table by kicking when you're on the 1, even without getting any benefit from pinning the opponent deep if you fail.

The 4th and goal from the 5 earlier I hated but this one seemed fine to me. They just should have run Ekeler.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,483
Part of the analytics is that if you go for it on 4th at the 1 and fail, it leaves your opponent on the 1 yard line. Brandy went for it with 2 seconds left on the clock. Inexcusable. It didn't leave the Chiefs on the 1, it just ended the half.

I love that you're defending this idiot because of "the book", especially after last night's shit show. The book is a guide, not gospel. Regardless, not taking the points before the half is stupid for a variety of reasons. The book ignores psychology. Football is not played by robots.
Absolutely agree with this. Going for it with 2 seconds left was the mistake. Take the points, head into the half, you are not benefitted by pinning them at the once since they do not get a possession.. The other times, no issue.

But look, this is window dressing for the bad decision making on the first drive. They ran the ball effectively to get inside the 5 and then pass it 4 times.

After having letdowns and the major injury I would consider the team's mindset. A failure on the 1 without the benefit of pinning the Chiefs vs getting up a TD heading into the half.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,452
Philadelphia
Anyway, that game only strengthened my conviction that the Patriots match up well with the Chiefs. They do one thing well on offense which is throw the ball to Kelce and Hill, often out of structure. They can't run it, they can't throw to any other WR or TE effectively, their screen game was pretty crap. Who happens to be the greatest defensive coach in NFL history that has made a career out of taking away the thing opponents do best and forcing them to beat him in other ways? If we play them, BB is going to build a game plan around keeping Mahomes in the pocket, having a lot of creative different kinds of doubles on Hill and Kelce from play to play, and making Mahomes throw it over and over again to Byron Pringle, Mecole Hardman, and their crappy backs for short yardage. And I feel good about it working.

On the other side of the ball, I think we can we bully them in the run game and throw off play action.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
I'm not saying it can't happen but if the Pats go into KC and win an AFC Championship game there with a rookie QB (who would be trying to win his third straight playoff game in that scenario, which has never been done by a rookie QB before) they should re-name the Lombardi trophy the Belichick trophy. Not saying it can't happen but it would be unprecedented. I don't think the Chiefs are that great either, but I also don't see them losing another regular season game which means the only way that matchup happens in Foxboro is if the Pats win out also.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,927
Wayne, NJ
What about not going for 2 up 7? With what 9:29 left?

60-70% chance to go up 2? What do the analytics say?

I was shocked they didn’t go for 2
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,452
Philadelphia
I'm not saying it can't happen but if the Pats go into KC and win an AFC Championship game there with a rookie QB (who would be trying to win his third straight playoff game in that scenario, which has never been done by a rookie QB before) they should re-name the Lombardi trophy the Belichick trophy. Not saying it can't happen but it would be unprecedented. I don't think the Chiefs are that great either, but I also don't see them losing another regular season game which means the only way that matchup happens in Foxboro is if the Pats win out also.
I don't think they are good enough to make @CIN or @DEN sure things. Pats may need to win out but KC still dropping one wouldn't shock me.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,865
Hingham, MA
I don't think they are good enough to make @CIN or @DEN sure things. Pats may need to win out but KC still dropping one wouldn't shock me.
Agree, even if you give them an 80% chance in all 3 games, that gives them roughly a 50% chance to lose once. They may well win out, they seemed to have found some mojo, but they're just not a dominant team. Their run D also appears very vulnerable based on last night.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,927
Wayne, NJ
Agree, even if you give them an 80% chance in all 3 games, that gives them roughly a 50% chance to lose once. They may well win out, they seemed to have found some mojo, but they're just not a dominant team. Their run D also appears very vulnerable based on last night.
Plus Herbert played very poorly. His touch is awful. Everything is thrown at lightning speed. A couple of catches were incredible (Allen on the left sideline fairly late and an even better catch (his only one) by Palmer on the right sideline.

the “drops” by Cook by the goal line was a terrible pass and the “drop” by Allen over the middle was a rocket thrown high. High hard passes are not a good thing. As we know Brady throwing low over the middle and to the outside is a major reason for his low interception rate. Don’t get me wrong - I’m big on Herbert but the “names” always put more stock in the one or two amazing plays than the overall result. Last night’s results were terrible.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,096
New York City
You probably convert that on 4th and goal from the 1 like 60-70% of the time so you're talking about 4.2-4.9 expected points versus 3 for the FG. You are simply leaving points on the table by kicking when you're on the 1, even without getting any benefit from pinning the opponent deep if you fail.

The 4th and goal from the 5 earlier I hated but this one seemed fine to me. They just should have run Ekeler.
I just think the analytics ignore the fact that this game is played by human beings.

LAC gets stopped at the 1 to end the half. Does that give a boost to KC? How big a boost? Did it give them the emotional boost they needed to win the game in the 2nd half?

Obviously, expected points also don't take into account game situation. If LAC kicks that FG, they have a lot more to work with in the 2nd half because they would have had more points. In a game that went to OT, I bet LAC wished they had those 3 points. I love when teams go for it. I think being aggressive is smart in many cases.

But not kicking the FG at the end of the half was a huge mistake and it cost the team a win and probably the division.
 

SamK

New Member
May 31, 2012
151
What about not going for 2 up 7? With what 9:29 left?

60-70% chance to go up 2? What do the analytics say?

I was shocked they didn’t go for 2
I thought going for 2 was the right call there. So glad you brought this up.
There is no big downside to chance they miss the 2 point conversion. Right?
Watching those kick-or-go-for-it decisions all game reminded me about winning at football the way that seeing a been-run-over-squirrel reminded me about anatomy when I was a boy.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,379
I generally agree going for it is good, and I think in time the results will bear out for the Chargers that it's often the right call. That said, I'm completely with johnmd about the before the half attempt. Anywhere else in the game, going for it and failing still sets you up with an opportunity to get the ball back with good field position. At the end of the half, you essentially know the next play will be the Chiefs at at least their own 25, so that hedging of the bet is completely eliminated. I think that's a key moment to take your 3 and run with it, especially given that it's not really a coin flip - you've seen the Chiefs can stop you from that spot twice (?) already.

At the time I liked them not going for 2 up 7, but in hindsight it was probably the other biggest mistake of the game. Staley called every big decision as though the Chiefs could score at will, and then at the one point in the game where it would have had the biggest impact - making it a 2 score game, not 1, he plays it conservative. Super questionable in hindsight.

Separate thought, and I kind of already said it in the game thread, but I think the Chargers probably win if Ekeler was 100%. The within the 5 play calling is almost certainly different and better if they feel they can ask him to carry the full load.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I'm not saying it can't happen but if the Pats go into KC and win an AFC Championship game there with a rookie QB (who would be trying to win his third straight playoff game in that scenario, which has never been done by a rookie QB before) they should re-name the Lombardi trophy the Belichick trophy. Not saying it can't happen but it would be unprecedented. I don't think the Chiefs are that great either, but I also don't see them losing another regular season game which means the only way that matchup happens in Foxboro is if the Pats win out also.
I think you could make a case that the AFC championship trophy should be the Belichick trophy, when all is said and done in 10 years or so after he's inducted into the HOF. I mean, shit, he's appeared in 13 of them as HC.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,452
Philadelphia
I just think the analytics ignore the fact that this game is played by human beings.

LAC gets stopped at the 1 to end the half. Does that give a boost to KC? How big a boost? Did it give them the emotional boost they needed to win the game in the 2nd half?

Obviously, expected points also don't take into account game situation. If LAC kicks that FG, they have a lot more to work with in the 2nd half because they would have had more points. In a game that went to OT, I bet LAC wished they had those 3 points. I love when teams go for it. I think being aggressive is smart in many cases.

But not kicking the FG at the end of the half was a huge mistake and it cost the team a win and probably the division.
Well, what if they get the TD? Does that give a boost to LAC and demoralize KC?

In the end, I don't see the argument for a big psychological effect of not getting the FG anyway. Its not like KC came out and blew them off the field in the second half. The Chargers were up 8 with less than 10 minutes to go in the 4th quarter and would have been up more if they hadn't fumbled on the goal line the previous possession. And the Chargers again had a really good chance to win the game at the end but they ended up punting for the first time all game.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,865
Hingham, MA
It's not 100% apples to apples, but the Eagles went for 4th and goal with 30 seconds left in the half in SB52. We all know what happened. It was a key play in them winning that SB. They wouldn't have gotten the ball back if they failed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The problem for the Chargers last night was that it happened twice. If they had settled for the FG on the opening drive, then it becomes a no-brainer to just tack on 3 and take the 10 point lead into halftime.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,937
Portland, Maine
I just think the analytics ignore the fact that this game is played by human beings.

LAC gets stopped at the 1 to end the half. Does that give a boost to KC? How big a boost? Did it give them the emotional boost they needed to win the game in the 2nd half?

Obviously, expected points also don't take into account game situation. If LAC kicks that FG, they have a lot more to work with in the 2nd half because they would have had more points. In a game that went to OT, I bet LAC wished they had those 3 points. I love when teams go for it. I think being aggressive is smart in many cases.

But not kicking the FG at the end of the half was a huge mistake and it cost the team a win and probably the division.
I agree with pretty much all this, but there's also the "imposing your will on the game" thing. I think the Chargers went into it assuming they were in for a gunslinger battle, with two mobile QBs and two defenses that were going to allow points, and that FGs weren't going to cut it. The problem is that they didn't adjust when it looked like they actually might be able to control the game (as I think the Pats could do against the Chiefs, if last night is any indication). Their coverage was too poor and they let Mahomes run around.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,025
Mansfield MA
It's not 100% apples to apples, but the Eagles went for 4th and goal with 30 seconds left in the half in SB52. We all know what happened. It was a key play in them winning that SB. They wouldn't have gotten the ball back if they failed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The problem for the Chargers last night was that it happened twice. If they had settled for the FG on the opening drive, then it becomes a no-brainer to just tack on 3 and take the 10 point lead into halftime.
Sure, if you replace both the first half unsuccessful 4th down conversions with FGs but not the successful one. If the Chargers kick the FG on 4th and 1 the drive before, it's 13-10 ... basically the same score situation.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,865
Hingham, MA
Sure, if you replace both the first half unsuccessful 4th down conversions with FGs but not the successful one. If the Chargers kick the FG on 4th and 1 the drive before, it's 13-10 ... basically the same score situation.
Right, it's not easy in real time. It's also similar but different to the 2015 AFCCG. The Pats drove inside the Broncos red zone 3x in the 4th quarter, failing the first two times, and then scoring the TD but not converting. Hindsight being 20/20 if the Pats just kicked FGs they'd have won 21-20.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,463
Overland Park, KS
If you have 10-14 drives per game, shouldn't you maximize points per drive? I am all for going balls to the wall but points are at a premium.

As a NE fan, it pained me to watch both Kelsey and Hill go off. At least have a plan to stop or limit one. Kelsey had free release after free release.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,314
If you have 10-14 drives per game, shouldn't you maximize points per drive? I am all for going balls to the wall but points are at a premium.

As a NE fan, it pained me to watch both Kelsey and Hill go off. At least have a plan to stop or limit one. Kelsey had free release after free release.
They also let Kelce run through their secondary like he was Jerry Rice after he caught the ball. Just a putrid effort. Kelce and Hill are great talents so you can’t shut them down but last night was absurd. Kelce went 24/295/2 in 2 games against LAC this year. I mean…cmon.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,927
Wayne, NJ
They also let Kelce run through their secondary like he was Jerry Rice after he caught the ball. Just a putrid effort. Kelce and Hill are great talents so you can’t shut them down but last night was absurd. Kelce went 24/295/2 in 2 games against LAC this year. I mean…cmon.
They never even tried to pressure him at the LOS. Free & clean every time!
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
I don't think they're going to each be national telecasts, so I imagine it's to do split regional TV coverage of them and not totally gum up a network's schedule.
Seahawks @ Rams though is a weird one. Two West Coast teams should have made things simpler. Why play at 5 ET / 2 PT instead of 8 ET / 5 PT? NFL Network could broadcast both games but it wouldn’t totally preempt prime time TV on the West Coast when broadcast locally in LA/Seattle, plus fans wouldn’t have to try to watch a game at 2pm on a Tuesday.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,308
from the wilds of western ma
I don't think they're going to each be national telecasts, so I imagine it's to do split regional TV coverage of them and not totally gum up a network's schedule.
Yeah, I guess logistically that makes sense. I would think a stand alone NFL game, with playoff implications, would be more desirable from a ratings standpoint than whatever the network(s) have scheduled that night, but you're probably correct. Too many moving parts at this late hour to shuffle their schedule.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,096
New York City
Yeah, I guess logistically that makes sense. I would think a stand alone NFL game, with playoff implications, would be more desirable from a ratings standpoint than whatever the network(s) have scheduled that night, but you're probably correct. Too many moving parts at this late hour to shuffle their schedule.
There is no doubt an NFL will get more eyeballs than most anything else on TV. But it's the moving pieces that make it difficult.

edit - last year, Sunday night football had a 4.7 rating. Thursday had a 3.9. The #3 show was This Is Us, and the Masked Singer, both with a 2.0 rating. Nothing is even in the same solar system as the NFL when it comes to ratings.
 
Last edited:

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,454
I checked the thread but didn't see an update on the Chargers TE that looked to be seriously injured last night. Sorry if I missed it. In any case, it's been reported that he suffered a concussion but has been released from the hospital.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think you could make a case that the AFC championship trophy should be the Belichick trophy, when all is said and done in 10 years or so after he's inducted into the HOF. I mean, shit, he's appeared in 13 of them as HC.
Someone recently -- Kliff Kingsbury, maybe -- suggested that the Coach of the Year award shoudl be named for Belichick. I think that's a great idea and quite likely as well. I don't see them renaming an award or a trophy that currently has a name.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Is it contextual?

Explain it to me. Tell me the statistics behind it.

I'll wait.
Well, I don’t know anything about this guy, but here’s one take on the context:
The book knows the exact strength of each player on the field, the defense you're playing, the schemes you've been running against each other all day?
Oh wait…that guy is you.
You literally described the context.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,170
Westwood MA
""The quickest way to win a game like that is to score touchdowns not field goals, especially considering who's on the other side." Chargers coach Brandon Staley on being aggressive on 4th down against the Chiefs."

And there's the rub; there are teams that when they play the Chiefs, they have a mindset of it's going to be a shootout, you're not going to beat this team by kicking field goals.

Which is exactly what would have happened if they kicked two field goals inside the 5 vs going for touchdowns, then throw in trying a FG from I think it was the 35 or so vs going for it again on 4th down.

That's 9 points they left on the field by being too aggressive vs the Chiefs.