NFL 2023-2024 Thread

QWERTYLICIOUS

QWERTYLICIOUS

Starter
#3,661
#3,661
Section 101 said:
Taking the ball first is the correct move. They needed a td, the fg allowed the chiefs to win.
Click to expand...
Also, taking the ball first is the correct move because if you march down and score, they march down and answer with a score of their own, you control the outcome by being able to march down and scoring for the win. If, at that point, you can't march down and score for the win, and end up allowing them to march back down and score for the win, you probably didn't deserve to win the game in the first place.
 
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,662
#3,662
Section 101 said:
Taking the ball first is the correct move. They needed a td, the fg allowed the chiefs to win.
Click to expand...
Not really, If the 49ers got the TD, then KC would still get the ball back. KC knew they could tie with a FG or win on a TD.

Shanahan absolutely should had deferred the kickoff. It's like in baseball extra innings, you always want to have the ball last, because you know what you need to do to tie or win.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS

QWERTYLICIOUS

Starter
#3,663
#3,663
ockingsfan said:
Not really, If the 49ers got the TD, then KC would still get the ball back. KC knew they could tie with a FG or win on a TD.

Shanahan absolutely should had deferred the kickoff. It's like in baseball extra innings, you always want to have the ball last, because you know what you need to do to tie or win.
Click to expand...
You actually take the ball first, march downfield, put up 7, and then turn it over to your defense to stop them on the next possession. Take the pressure off of your offense, and put it on their offense instead. Sure, the defense will be under a lot of pressure at that time, but so will their offense. And an offense under pressure is bound to make a lot more mistakes than not.
 
SLAB

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#3,664
#3,664
ockingsfan said:
Not really, If the 49ers got the TD, then KC would still get the ball back. KC knew they could tie with a FG or win on a TD.

Shanahan absolutely should had deferred the kickoff. It's like in baseball extra innings, you always want to have the ball last, because you know what you need to do to tie or win.
Click to expand...
Disagree completely. Having the ball when it gets to sudden death after two possessions is the key to this. Shanahan should have gone for it on 4th and TD because we knew what Mahomes was going to do right after Moody kicked the FG. Perfect world, we score the TD. They respond as they do. It’s now sudden death with the ball in Purdy’s hands. If the possessions are swapped, Mahomes has the ball in sudden death, it’s already over.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS

QWERTYLICIOUS

Starter
#3,665
#3,665
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
You actually take the ball first, march downfield, put up 7, and then turn it over to your defense to stop them on the next possession. Take the pressure off of your offense, and put it on their offense instead. Sure, the defense will be under a lot of pressure at that time, but so will their offense. And an offense under pressure is bound to make a lot more mistakes than not.
Click to expand...
Also, if you take the ball first, score, and they march downfield and match your scoring output, the game is now back in your hands, and you can march downfield and win. If you defer, and they put up 7, and you answer by doing the same, then you are relying heavily on your defense to stop them on the next drive. Because, if they don't, you don't win.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#3,666
#3,666
Section 101 said:
Taking the ball first is the correct move. They needed a td, the fg allowed the chiefs to win.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. Having the third possession in OT is important, because at that point any score wins the game, but that's only relevant if you actually *get* to the third possession. The Chiefs had a serious advantage in knowing exactly what they had to do, and a very big advantage in having four downs to do it. The team that defers doesn't have a punt unit. Furthermore, the Chiefs had no reason to play prevent defense - even a TD could be matched so they could play straight up. After kicking the FG, the Niners were forced to guard against a game-winning touchdown and were basically already in the position of at best conceding a FG from the moment the drive started.

Bottom line, the team that receives is put into a conservative position from the start of OT (on O, and then on D if they don't score a TD), and the team that kicks is put into aggressive mode (on D, and then on O regardless of whether the other team scores or not). And my experience watching football tells me that aggressive play wins way better then 50% of the time. Yes, it beat the Lions in the NFC Championship game, but I'll take the aggressive approach every time based on history.

We don't have stats on this style of OT because it has never been used before, but it looks to me that "receive" is the wrong choice.
 
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,667
#3,667
SLAB said:
Disagree completely. Having the ball when it gets to sudden death after two possessions is the key to this. Shanahan should have gone for it on 4th and TD because we knew what Mahomes was going to do right after Moody kicked the FG. Perfect world, we score the TD. They respond as they do. It’s now sudden death with the ball in Purdy’s hands. If the possessions are swapped, Mahomes has the ball in sudden death, it’s already over.
Click to expand...
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
You actually take the ball first, march downfield, put up 7, and then turn it over to your defense to stop them on the next possession. Take the pressure off of your offense, and put it on their offense instead. Sure, the defense will be under a lot of pressure at that time, but so will their offense. And an offense under pressure is bound to make a lot more mistakes than not.
Click to expand...
KC has already said they had a game plan for OT. If they scored the TD on their possession, they would had gone for the 2 point conversion.

SF would never of had a chance in sudden death. SF assumed they would have a chance in sudden dealth, but there was never going to be a sudden death. It would had been over either way after KC possession. KC was prepared for OT, SF wasn't.
 
Last edited:
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,668
#3,668
Capt. Factorial said:
I'm not sure about that. Having the third possession in OT is important, because at that point any score wins the game, but that's only relevant if you actually *get* to the third possession. The Chiefs had a serious advantage in knowing exactly what they had to do, and a very big advantage in having four downs to do it. The team that defers doesn't have a punt unit. Furthermore, the Chiefs had no reason to play prevent defense - even a TD could be matched so they could play straight up. After kicking the FG, the Niners were forced to guard against a game-winning touchdown and were basically already in the position of at best conceding a FG from the moment the drive started.

Bottom line, the team that receives is put into a conservative position from the start of OT (on O, and then on D if they don't score a TD), and the team that kicks is put into aggressive mode (on D, and then on O regardless of whether the other team scores or not). And my experience watching football tells me that aggressive play wins way better then 50% of the time. Yes, it beat the Lions in the NFC Championship game, but I'll take the aggressive approach every time based on history.

We don't have stats on this style of OT because it has never been used before, but it looks to me that "receive" is the wrong choice.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct assessment.

Furthermore, I really think Shanahan thought that the game would end after the 15 minute OT clock expired. He was hoping that KC would run out of time in OT and end the game. Otherwise, why wouldn't he call a timeout with KC on the 4 yard line to set his defense knowing that a TD is the end of the game? He'll never admit it, but I think Shanahan didn't understand the new OT rules.
 
D

dude12

Hall of Famer
#3,669
#3,669
ockingsfan said:
I'm thinking that Shanahan himself didn't know the new rules of playoff Overtime.

Otherwise he should have deferred on the overtime kickoff plus he should had called a timeout during that frenetic last play to set his defense. It looked like he wanted the clock to run out, but it would had just went into the 2nd overtime period. He probably incorrectly thought the game would end of the 15 minute quarter.
Click to expand...
Maybe but that would be sooo bad if he and his staff didn’t know that. Would be hard to believe he didn’t know.
It’s one thing I was confused as get up but the staff I’m sure knew. Just seems like the players HAVE to know.
 
Section 101

Section 101

All-Star
#3,670
#3,670
ockingsfan said:
Not really, If the 49ers got the TD, then KC would still get the ball back. KC knew they could tie with a FG or win on a TD.

Shanahan absolutely should had deferred the kickoff. It's like in baseball extra innings, you always want to have the ball last, because you know what you need to do to tie or win.
Click to expand...
And then the Chiefs get the ball back and any score wins.
 
D

dude12

Hall of Famer
#3,671
#3,671
ockingsfan said:
KC has already said they had a game plan for OT. If they scored the TD on their possession, they would had gone for the 2 point conversion.

SF would never of had a chance in sudden death. SF assumed they would have a chance in sudden dealth, but there was never going to be a sudden death. It would had been over either way after KC possession. KC was prepared for OT, SF wasn't.
Click to expand...
Was just going to post the plan to go for 2 after a TD instead of giving the ball back to the Niners. Here’s the other thing. That TD they scored on was the same play they have been running on all of these end of game big moments. I don’t think I’ve seen it stopped yet. Guy goes in motion towards the line and reverses direction with speed and the defense has to absolutely be locked into it. Every time I’ve seen it, the defender can not stay with the reciever
 
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,672
#3,672
Section 101 said:
And then the Chiefs get the ball back and any score wins.
Click to expand...
How do you game plan for the 3rd possession when that's not guaranteed?

If you know a TD on your first possession doesn't win it for you, then you need to defer the kickoff and see what happens after KC's possession.

KC absolutely had the advantage going 2nd because they knew what they had to do and they knew they had 4 downs on every possession to get a first down.
 
Section 101

Section 101

All-Star
#3,673
#3,673
ockingsfan said:
How do you game plan for the 3rd possession when that's not guaranteed?

If you know a TD on your first possession doesn't win it for you, then you need to defer the kickoff and see what happens after KC's possession.

KC absolutely had the advantage going 2nd because they knew what they had to do and they knew they had 4 downs on every possession to get a first down.
Click to expand...
Huh? Getting a TD guarantees another possession unless the other team goes for 2 and the win. They don't stop and flip another coin for possession.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS

QWERTYLICIOUS

Starter
#3,674
#3,674
ockingsfan said:
How do you game plan for the 3rd possession when that's not guaranteed?

If you know a TD on your first possession doesn't win it for you, then you need to defer the kickoff and see what happens after KC's possession.

KC absolutely had the advantage going 2nd because they knew what they had to do and they knew they had 4 downs on every possession to get a first down.
Click to expand...
We can all agree to disagree then...:p:p:p
 
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,676
#3,676
Section 101 said:
Huh? Getting a TD guarantees another possession unless the other team goes for 2 and the win. They don't stop and flip another coin for possession.
Click to expand...
KC already confirmed they would go for 2 if the Niners would had scored a touchdown.

Shanahan wrongly assumed KC would go for the tie if the Niners scored a TD first, but that wouldn't have happened. A third possession wouldn't have happened because KC would have ended the game one way or another on a 2 point conversion.
 
T

Tizzy Flip

Bench
#3,678
#3,678
ockingsfan said:
KC already confirmed they would go for 2 if the Niners would had scored a touchdown.

Shanahan wrongly assumed KC would go for the tie if the Niners scored a TD first, but that wouldn't have happened. A third possession wouldn't have happened because KC would have ended the game one way or another on a 2 point conversion.
Click to expand...
100% this. The Chiefs were surprised we didn’t defer cuz they were going to if they won the toss. Their whole thought process was we’re not playing for a 3rd possession:

- Niners kick FG. KC gets a TD. No 3rd possession
- Niners score TD. KC gets a TD and go for 2. No 3rd possession
- Niners kick FG. KC kicks FG, only in the scenario that they are on FG range and are 4th and 10+. With the way there were moving the ball last 4 drives, I saw this as low probability

All of this said, I don’t think it was a bad decision. What was a bad decision IMO was having 2nd and 4 at the 9, and not thinking it’s 4 down territory. If you make the call to receive, you better score a TD
 
ockingsfan

ockingsfan

Starter
#3,679
#3,679
Tizzy Flip said:
100% this. The Chiefs were surprised we didn’t defer cuz they were going to if they won the toss. Their whole thought process was we’re not playing for a 3rd possession:

- Niners kick FG. KC gets a TD. No 3rd possession
- Niners score TD. KC gets a TD and go for 2. No 3rd possession
- Niners kick FG. KC kicks FG, only in the scenario that they are on FG range and are 4th and 10+. With the way there were moving the ball last 4 drives, I saw this as low probability

All of this said, I don’t think it was a bad decision. What was a bad decision IMO was having 2nd and 4 at the 9, and not thinking it’s 4 down territory. If you make the call to receive, you better score a TD
Click to expand...
Another thing was that the Chiefs had the ball on the 4 yard line and everyone on the Niners were scrambling to get back on Defense.

Since Shanahan knew that a touchdown would end the game, why didn't he call a time out to set up his defense? Makes me think he thought that if the game clock went down to 0:00 on the quarter, the game was over. It looked to me that he wanted the game clock to expire. There was no reason for him to save the timeouts at that point. They needed a stop and they didn't get it.
 
SLAB

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#3,680
#3,680
ockingsfan said:
Another thing was that the Chiefs had the ball on the 4 yard line and everyone on the Niners were scrambling to get back on Defense.

Since Shanahan knew that a touchdown would end the game, why didn't he call a time out to set up his defense? Makes me think he thought that if the game clock went down to 0:00 on the quarter, the game was over. It looked to me that he wanted the game clock to expire. There was no reason for him to save the timeouts at that point. They needed a stop and they didn't get it.
Click to expand...
The defense could have been perfectly healthy and also set, once Kelce got that first and goal from the four it was donezo.
 
SLAB

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#3,682
#3,682
I still can’t believe how loose and preventy Wilks went after the field goal in the late fourth. He just invited the Chiefs to walk it down into FG range those first four plays before they ripped it to the red zone. That’s right up there with Shanahan calling 9 straight pass plays in the third.
 
Section 101

Section 101

All-Star
#3,685
#3,685
Tetsujin said:
I feel like it would’ve been one thing if he’d gotten hurt actually playing but it was an absolute fluke injury where his leg just buckled running onto the field during the TV timeout. Just an anticlimactic buzzkill
Click to expand...
I still remember when Rudy Gay ruptured his. Saw him go down and look back like someone kicked him. Knew right away it as achilles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.