PDA

View Full Version : The last field goal against San Diego. What do you think?


Rain Man
10-31-2005, 04:36 PM
As a reminder, we were down 21-10 at the beginning of the fourth quarter. We came up with this drive:

1-10-SD35 (15:00) T.Green pass to T.Gonzalez to SD 23 for 12 yards (C.Hart).
1-10-SD23 (14:18) T.Green pass to C.Horn pushed ob at SD 10 for 13 yards (B.Jue).
1-10-SD10 (13:52) L.Johnson left end to SD 5 for 5 yards (S.Cooper, S.Phillips).
2-5-SD5 (13:15) T.Green right end to SD 3 for 2 yards (B.Jue, J.Cesaire).
3-3-SD3 (12:32) L.Johnson right tackle to SD 2 for 1 yard (J.Cesaire, S.Merriman).
4-2-SD2 (12:03) L.Tynes 20 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-K.Gammon, Holder-D.Colquitt.


It was 4th and goal at the 2-yard line with 12 minutes left in the game and we were down 21-10. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to kick the field goal?

Brock
10-31-2005, 04:37 PM
I knew the chiefs would lose at that point.

tk13
10-31-2005, 04:39 PM
You have to go for 3 there. Take the points and make it a 1 possession game.

OldTownChief
10-31-2005, 04:40 PM
Unbelievably stupid call, esp. after calling a timeout to discuss it. Even after the kick we still needed a TD AND a two point conv. One of the stupidest of all time IMO.

kcfanXIII
10-31-2005, 04:40 PM
2 yds isn't that much for our offensive line, plus we needed a monmentum shift

Rain Man
10-31-2005, 04:41 PM
I think that on the 2-yard line, with the way the game was going, it would have been worth the risk to go for the TD. I was disappointed that they went for the FG.

Of course, I was also disappointed that we couldn't run the ball in on 3rd down. I'm a little spoiled in that regard, I guess.

HemiEd
10-31-2005, 04:42 PM
Strongly disagree, see Chiefs against Bears 1993. Marty goes for three in a similar situation, Bears drive down and beat us with no time left, 19/17. We ended up playing Buffalo in the playoffs for the AFC Championship at Buffalo, if we would have won that game they would have come to KC. :lame:

Douche Baggins
10-31-2005, 04:45 PM
I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. Even if we scored a TD, we still trail 28-17 after Gates TD.

Where we failed was pissing two redzone opportunities away and getting zero points.

OldTownChief
10-31-2005, 04:45 PM
You have to go for 3 there. Take the points and make it a 1 possession game.

If a coach doesn't have the confidence to punch it in from 4th and 2 then why would he believe that his team could get the two point conv. if they had that chance? I could see getting the 3 to make it a 7 point game but no way for 8.

OldTownChief
10-31-2005, 04:48 PM
I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. Even if we scored a TD, we still trail 28-17 after Gates TD.

Where we failed was pissing two redzone opportunities away and getting zero points.

At the time this decision had to be made it wasn't pointless, making your post pointless.

HemiEd
10-31-2005, 04:51 PM
At the time this decision had to be made it wasn't pointless, making your post pointless.


eh, good point!

headsnap
10-31-2005, 04:51 PM
At the time this decision had to be made it wasn't pointless, making your post pointless.

and your point is? :p

OldTownChief
10-31-2005, 04:57 PM
and your point is? :p

I was trying to make a point. But I had some trouble getting to the point.

Johnson&Johnson
10-31-2005, 05:00 PM
I knew the chiefs would lose at that point.

Me too. 3 downs on SD 10 yard line and they can't get in the endzone. Come on!!!!! :cuss:

But to answer your thread, yes, they have noi choice but to kick the FG because there's still almost a full quarter left to play at that point down by 8pts.

Johnson&Johnson
10-31-2005, 05:03 PM
Strongly disagree, see Chiefs against Bears 1993. Marty goes for three in a similar situation, Bears drive down and beat us with no time left, 19/17. We ended up playing Buffalo in the playoffs for the AFC Championship at Buffalo, if we would have won that game they would have come to KC. :lame:

I remember that game. But i didn't realize it was that game vs. Bears that could have gotten us one more victory to host that Buffalo game in KC. :deevee:

Joe Montana got pounded in Buffalo. I also remember Kimble Anders dropping that sure TD before the half when the score was 13-0 I think.

KcMizzou
10-31-2005, 05:11 PM
If you go for it and don't make it... the game's basically over. The let-down would be huge. (not to mention the momentum the stop would give the opposing team and their crowd.) Sand Diego had been dominating the LOS all day...

The FG was the right call, IMO.

greg63
10-31-2005, 05:13 PM
It would have been a gamble, but I would have agreed with a dicision to go for the TD, but I'm probably the wrost armchair coach in the world.

OldTownChief
10-31-2005, 05:15 PM
If you go for it and don't make it... the game's basically over. The let-down would be huge. (not to mention the momentum the stop would give the opposing team and their crowd.) Sand Diego had been dominating the LOS all day...

The FG was the right call, IMO.

Same argument could be made for the momentum swing our way, had we made the TD.

KcMizzou
10-31-2005, 05:19 PM
Same argument could be made for the momentum swing our way, had we made the TD.True... to a point. I believe the "mo" would have helped them more than us, because they were playing at home.

It's a tough call either way. I sure as hell wanted a TD in that spot.. but I fully understood the reasoning behind taking the 3.

HemiEd
10-31-2005, 05:31 PM
I remember that game. But i didn't realize it was that game vs. Bears that could have gotten us one more victory to host that Buffalo game in KC. :deevee:

Joe Montana got pounded in Buffalo. I also remember Kimble Anders dropping that sure TD before the half when the score was 13-0 I think.

Yep, the Bears sucked at that time, it was early in my exposure to Marty Ball. I can still remember how upset I was when we kicked that field goal, and many more since then. :banghead:

cdcox
10-31-2005, 06:14 PM
At the time, I thought getting within 8 was the right call. Mom and Dad were in town, so we got to watch a rare game together. Dad was of the opinion that we should go for it, because we would never be closer to the end zone. In the poll, I voted go for it, since we now know how the FG option worked.

kcfanXIII
10-31-2005, 06:58 PM
I remember that game. But i didn't realize it was that game vs. Bears that could have gotten us one more victory to host that Buffalo game in KC. :deevee:

Joe Montana got pounded in Buffalo. I also remember Kimble Anders dropping that sure TD before the half when the score was 13-0 I think.
i just remember the houston game before it was the last playoff game we've won:(

and of course montana getting poinded

siberian khatru
10-31-2005, 07:01 PM
Calling that timeout still bugs me far more than the FG call. Take a 5-yard penalty and kick a 25-yard FG instead of a 20. Those second-half timeouts in close games are gold. And we consistently piss them away.

ExtremeChief
10-31-2005, 07:04 PM
Either way, I wouldn't mind if they didn't waste a f**king timeout.

Chiefnj
10-31-2005, 07:06 PM
I didn't have a problem with the field goal against San Diego. Marty tends to go ultraconservative in close games. There was no reason to think Marty wouldn't go into a shell and give the Chiefs mulitple opportunities to drive down the field again to tie it up.

StcChief
10-31-2005, 07:33 PM
Go for it TD.
Vermeil is playing Marty. 20-17 makes a win a possiblity.

D is back on field either way.

Spent the timeout
The Prayer was for a later TD and 2pt conversion.

Even though Tynes my FFL kicker this week.

Johnson&Johnson
10-31-2005, 08:03 PM
i just remember the houston game before it was the last playoff game we've won:(

and of course montana getting poinded


I remember it too well...too well. Keith Cash spitting at Buddy Ryan's poster in the endzone after he scored. :drool:

greg63
10-31-2005, 08:56 PM
At the time, I thought getting within 8 was the right call. Mom and Dad were in town, so we got to watch a rare game together. Dad was of the opinion that we should go for it, because we would never be closer to the end zone. In the poll, I voted go for it, since we now know how the FG option worked.

Yea, same here - hind sight is 20/20.

philfree
10-31-2005, 09:05 PM
If we don't get 8 points outta going for it then we still have to have a TD to win and the odds for us to win the game get longer. If we got stuffed on 4th we're still down two scores and the game is all but decided. So by going for it we're putting the game on the line before we have to. With the 3 we have a chance to win it in the end. No need to decide the game with that much time on the clock. That's why you kick the FG in that situation.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
10-31-2005, 09:16 PM
I have no problem kicking the FG in that situation.

I do have a problem with running the ball to the right side of the line on 3rd down before that.
Did Al Saunders think that the right side would finally just magically open up at that point, when it hadn't been open all game, all season long?

Douche Baggins
10-31-2005, 09:19 PM
I do have a problem with running the ball to the right side of the line on 3rd down before that.
Did Al Saunders think that the right side would finally just magically open up at that point, when it hadn't been open all game, all season long?

Yeah that was pretty bad. We've been totally uncreative on short yardage downs all year.

philfree
10-31-2005, 09:34 PM
I have no problem kicking the FG in that situation.

I do have a problem with running the ball to the right side of the line on 3rd down before that.
Did Al Saunders think that the right side would finally just magically open up at that point, when it hadn't been open all game, all season long?


Yeah...I guess he figured he'd catch them off guard but the truth is we haven't blocked with any consistency anywhere on the o line. I figured with Roaf back and palying a game or two he'd be gettin his act together and our O line would start to gell. Wrong again! If we don't start blocking better our O his gonna struggle every game.

PhilFree:arrow:

kcfanXIII
11-01-2005, 12:21 AM
I remember it too well...too well. Keith Cash spitting at Buddy Ryan's poster in the endzone after he scored. :drool:
oh yeah, i forgot about that.

KChiefsQT
11-01-2005, 12:58 AM
You have to go for 3 there. Take the points and make it a 1 possession game.
No, no. you have confidence and go for the TD.

Saggysack
11-01-2005, 03:21 AM
It's a tough call either way. I sure as hell wanted a TD in that spot.. but I fully understood the reasoning behind taking the 3.

I understand the reasoning behind it. And it is, no balls. The coaching staff had no balls to either stick it in the endzone or back up the Chargers deep on the 2yd line if the 4th down attempt failed.

With the FG it put us 8pts down. Let's say the Chargers don't go down the field and score. Chargers punt. The Chiefs then drive down the field and score, thus setting up the 2pt possibility. What makes the Chiefs think they could get a 2pt conversion from the 2yd line but not the TD from the 2yd line from a possession earlier?

They took the easy way out. They played to lose in other words. They shoulda gone out there on the 2yd line with the attitude that they couldn't be stopped from crossing the goalline. Instead they went out there thinking 'we can atleast get 3'. Sure fire way to lose IMO. Play to win, not to tie.

tk13
11-01-2005, 03:51 AM
I think that "playing to lose" is a cop out. You take the 3 points, you put yourself in a position where one play can tie the game. Our offense had been moving the ball, our defense had stepped up in the 2nd half, and we were playing a coach who is known for being conservative late in the game.

I think a lot of Chiefs fans have been so burned out by Marty that they'd throw caution to the wind to not make the smart play sometimes. I mean there are times where you should go for it on 4th down, but I have a hard time ever going against the logic of making it a one-possession game. Especially with almost a whole quarter left to play. You're basically saying "I'll mortgage the whole game right now on one play, instead of putting our team one play away from tying this up with 25-30 plays to go."

Saggysack
11-01-2005, 04:52 AM
I think that "playing to lose" is a cop out. You take the 3 points, you put yourself in a position where one play can tie the game. Our offense had been moving the ball, our defense had stepped up in the 2nd half, and we were playing a coach who is known for being conservative late in the game.

I think a lot of Chiefs fans have been so burned out by Marty that they'd throw caution to the wind to not make the smart play sometimes. I mean there are times where you should go for it on 4th down, but I have a hard time ever going against the logic of making it a one-possession game. Especially with almost a whole quarter left to play. You're basically saying "I'll mortgage the whole game right now on one play, instead of putting our team one play away from tying this up with 25-30 plays to go."

It's not a cop out. And 1 play wouldn't have tied the game. A 2pt conversion isn't like a walk in the park EP, shouldn't act like it is.

Yes, the defense did step it up in the 4th qtr, which is why I believe they should have gone for it on 4th down. SD started their drive after the FG on the 47yd line. That's 45yds from the 2yd line if the Chiefs would have gone for it on 4th down and failed. Being back that far puts SD in a much different position. Less likely to score from 98yds away than 53yds.

Considering the Chiefs on their next possession, they had 3 more possessions after the FG drive, decided to go for it on a 4th and 8 at the SD 9yd line, and failed BTW, I have to really wonder what they were thinking not going for 4th and 2 at the goaline. Why was it so important to go for the long 4th down but not the short 4th down? Time? Or the realization that the FG really didn't help their situation at all.

patteeu
11-01-2005, 06:13 AM
Calling that timeout still bugs me far more than the FG call. Take a 5-yard penalty and kick a 25-yard FG instead of a 20. Those second-half timeouts in close games are gold. And we consistently piss them away.

I agree. If they are going to kick then DON'T TAKE THE TIMEOUT!!

jspchief
11-01-2005, 06:33 AM
Earlier in the game, similar situation:

3rd and 2 - No gain
3rd and 1 - No gain

SD had been stuffing us on short yardage. i agree with getting the 3. There is almost an entire qtr of football left, and out offense has woken up.

If you want to question play-calling. How about the next drive?

We're at 3rd and 2 on the SD 3. 2 yards gets a first down, 3 a TD. So we have two downs to get 2 yards. What do we do? Pass. Green gets sacked and suddenly we're going for 4th and 7 instead of 4th and short/goal. Stupid.

Area 51
11-01-2005, 06:55 AM
It's kind of a moot point, but SD was stuffing most all of the running plays all night. Our short yardage plays seemed to be setup too deep. If we were running quick hitters up the middle we might have had better luck, but as staed, it's a moot point.

Time to forget last game and move forward.

Anyone going to the Raider game?

Skip Towne
11-01-2005, 07:29 AM
By that stage of the game, our O linemen should know if one of them can consistently beat the man across from them. If one of thinks he can I go with the TD try. If not, I kick.

KingPriest2
11-01-2005, 08:56 AM
I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. Even if we scored a TD, we still trail 28-17 after Gates TD.

Where we failed was pissing two redzone opportunities away and getting zero points.


NOt really. What makes you think that play would have happened? Anything could have happened after that TD

bloomer88
11-01-2005, 09:33 AM
Earlier in the game, similar situation:

3rd and 2 - No gain
3rd and 1 - No gain

SD had been stuffing us on short yardage. i agree with getting the 3. There is almost an entire qtr of football left, and out offense has woken up.

If you want to question play-calling. How about the next drive?

We're at 3rd and 2 on the SD 3. 2 yards gets a first down, 3 a TD. So we have two downs to get 2 yards. What do we do? Pass. Green gets sacked and suddenly we're going for 4th and 7 instead of 4th and short/goal. Stupid.

Exactly. Did you guys see how many 3rd and 4th downs we actually converted? Not very many. I don't know why you would all of a sudden think we could convert a 4th and 2 at the goal line, after 3 quarters of SD's defense stuffing the run and blitzing the crap out of us and getting to Green almost every time. We had already came up with nothing on two other trips in the redzone. Get the 3 points, and give yourself another chance for a TD. I knew if they went for it, they would've screwed it up somehow and they would have basically given up the ball game that early in the 4th. I didn't have a problem with the decision at all. I did have a problem with wasting another timeout for it, though. Every single game we waste our timeouts.

Rain Man
11-01-2005, 09:42 AM
My thinking, which contains a big 'if' is that you should always go for it on a 4th and Goal at the 2. If you make it, you get 7 points, or maybe 8. If you don't make it, the opponent is backed up badly, and there's a reasonable chance that you'll get the ball back in very good field position a few minutes later. IF the defense can hold.

cdcox
11-01-2005, 10:43 AM
There were two ways to get the lead, assuming that SD did not score again:

Method 1:
Go for it on 4th and goal at the 2. Then generate another TD drive. You don't have to make either extra point for the lead.

Method 2:
Kick the field goal. Generate another TD drive. Do a 2 point conversion. Now you are tied. Still have to mount another score before the game is over or in OT to take the lead.

If you think about it, the 4th and G from the 2 yard line and the 2 pt conversion are equally difficult. You have one shot to gain two yards near the goal line. Both methods also required a TD drive.

The difference is that Method 2 requires two additional things to happen above and beyond method 1: you have to make the FG on 4th and goal from the 2 (should be a gimme) plus a whole extra score to take the lead.

Method 1 also has a bonus. If you make both extra points, even a Mary-special FG leaves you with a tie, sending you into over time. Allow that FG with Method 2 and you lose by 3.

I think that seals it for me. Dad was right and I was wrong. Going for the TD on 4th and G at the two was the right call. DV blew it again.

Johnson&Johnson
11-01-2005, 11:10 AM
There were two ways to get the lead, assuming that SD did not score again:

Method 1:
Go for it on 4th and goal at the 2. Then generate another TD drive. You don't have to make either extra point for the lead.

Method 2:
Kick the field goal. Generate another TD drive. Do a 2 point conversion. Now you are tied. Still have to mount another score before the game is over or in OT to take the lead.

If you think about it, the 4th and G from the 2 yard line and the 2 pt conversion are equally difficult. You have one shot to gain two yards near the goal line. Both methods also required a TD drive.

The difference is that Method 2 requires two additional things to happen above and beyond method 1: you have to make the FG on 4th and goal from the 2 (should be a gimme) plus a whole extra score to take the lead.

Method 1 also has a bonus. If you make both extra points, even a Mary-special FG leaves you with a tie, sending you into over time. Allow that FG with Method 2 and you lose by 3.

I think that seals it for me. Dad was right and I was wrong. Going for the TD on 4th and G at the two was the right call. DV blew it again.

I still believe the right call was made. FG was the way to go. All we needed was another stop and get the ball back at 21-13. The turn of the ball game was Gates breaking Sammy's tackle for the go ahead TD to make it 28-13. The reason I like the FG is that, if our Def could get the ball back, assuming Gates did not score, we march down and score and get the 2-pt conversion, the game is tie 21-21. And with Marty's brain and SD's previous week's collapses, I think the SD players would second guess themselves and go "oh-oh..shit not again" in the final minutes after leading by 2 score and allow the the other team to come back.

But all point is moot here because in order for any of this to happened, our defense can't allow the Gates 3rd TD. I think the defensive coaches over-compensated for LT (which worked) but under estimated Gates ability to beat our Def one-on-one.

Lurch
11-01-2005, 11:13 AM
It was the right decision, from a conservative coaching perspective. It was a decision though that may have cost Vermeil the ability to make many such similar decisions in the rest of this year though.

mcan
11-01-2005, 11:21 AM
There is NO WAY that going for it on fourth down is the right thing to do. NO WAY at all!

Odds of making a TD from 4th and goal at the 2 yard line: ~57%
(we are 8/10 on the year on 4th down. Average against San Diego stopping 6/9 of our drives at that time).

If TD is made:
Odds of completing 2 pt conversion: ~61%
(we would then be 9/11 on the year. Average against SD stopping 6/10.

Odds BEFORE THE TD, that both the TD AND the TWO point conversion will be good: .57 x .61 = ~35%

------------------------------------------------------------------

Odds of successfully kicking field goal: ~95%
(I believe this to be a conservative estimate).

------------------------------------------------------------------

This game HINGES on getting points this drive. Either a TD or a FG makes this a one posession game, and WINNABLE. Coming away with no points makes the game virutally UNWINNABLE.

patteeu
11-01-2005, 11:24 AM
There were two ways to get the lead, assuming that SD did not score again:

Method 1:
Go for it on 4th and goal at the 2. Then generate another TD drive. You don't have to make either extra point for the lead.

Method 2:
Kick the field goal. Generate another TD drive. Do a 2 point conversion. Now you are tied. Still have to mount another score before the game is over or in OT to take the lead.

If you think about it, the 4th and G from the 2 yard line and the 2 pt conversion are equally difficult. You have one shot to gain two yards near the goal line. Both methods also required a TD drive.

The difference is that Method 2 requires two additional things to happen above and beyond method 1: you have to make the FG on 4th and goal from the 2 (should be a gimme) plus a whole extra score to take the lead.

Method 1 also has a bonus. If you make both extra points, even a Mary-special FG leaves you with a tie, sending you into over time. Allow that FG with Method 2 and you lose by 3.

I think that seals it for me. Dad was right and I was wrong. Going for the TD on 4th and G at the two was the right call. DV blew it again.

Good analysis. I'm buying it.

cdcox
11-01-2005, 11:42 AM
There is NO WAY that going for it on fourth down is the right thing to do. NO WAY at all!

Odds of making a TD from 4th and goal at the 2 yard line: ~57%
(we are 8/10 on the year on 4th down. Average against San Diego stopping 6/9 of our drives at that time).

If TD is made:
Odds of completing 2 pt conversion: ~61%
(we would then be 9/11 on the year. Average against SD stopping 6/10.

Odds BEFORE THE TD, that both the TD AND the TWO point conversion will be good: .57 x .61 = ~35%

------------------------------------------------------------------

Odds of successfully kicking field goal: ~95%
(I believe this to be a conservative estimate).

------------------------------------------------------------------

This game HINGES on getting points this drive. Either a TD or a FG makes this a one posession game, and WINNABLE. Coming away with no points makes the game virutally UNWINNABLE.

Both seinarios require you to make a 60% likely play: either the 4th and goal from the 2 or the 2 pt conversion. For one you get 6 pts and for the other you get 2 pts. If they had scored the TD on 4th and 2, yes they probably would have tried for a 2 pt conversion. However, if they missed it, they could still win with a TD drive.

How to win with going for the FG = FG + TD + 2pt coversion + score before SD

lets set the odds as FG = 0.95, TD = 50%, 2pt coversion = 61% and scoring before SD = 50%

total odds = 0.95*0.5*.61*.50 = 14.5%


How to win with going for the TD = (TD from 2 + 2pt coversion + FG-drive + score before SD) or (TD from 2 + missed conversion + TD)

lets make the TD from 2 = 0.57 and the FG-drive = 60% (easier than TD drive)

total odds = 0.57*0.61*0.6*0.5 + 0.57*0.43*0.5 = 22.6%

My numbers say that going for the TD gives you a much better chance of winning.

(edited to fix math error)

mcan
11-01-2005, 11:45 AM
another way to look at it is this:

NO matter what happens on THIS drive, we HAVE to score here, and we have to hold them, and we have to score later.

One of those scores (now or later must be a TD with a 2 pt try)
One of those scores will probably be a field goal.

odds of TD from the 2 + conv ~35
odds of TD from the 2 ~57
odds of FG from the 2 ~95
odds of stopping SD on any given drive ~67
odds of driving for a later TD + conv ~10
odds of driving for a later TD ~17
odds of driving for a later FG ~33

man, either way, we're pretty f*cked, but it looks like the odds negate my previous statement... Wow...
TD + conv now, FG later = .35*.67*.33 = 8%
TD now (miss conv), TD later = .57*.67*.17 = 6%
FG now, TD + conv later = .95*.67*.1 = 6%

Some of these odds change considerable when you note that we were driving consistently in the second half.

ChiefsFan4Life
11-01-2005, 11:48 AM
This does not hold true for all situations, but in that particular game, the way things were going, I think you need to go for the TD. In my mind, a field goal there deflates your offense's confidence ("we only got three points after all that?") and bolsters the Chargers defensive confidence ("hell yeah, we held them to three").

However, you score a TD there, and that is an offensive confidence booster, momentum swing, and might hurt San Diego's defensive confidence towards the end of the game (when it matters most).

The way the game was going, in my opinion, 3 points or no points would have had the same effect.

cdcox
11-01-2005, 12:00 PM
odds of TD from the 2 + conv ~35
odds of TD from the 2 ~57
odds of FG from the 2 ~95
odds of stopping SD on any given drive ~67
odds of driving for a later TD + conv ~10
odds of driving for a later TD ~17
odds of driving for a later FG ~33



Using your odds for a more pessimistic view (I think TDs and FGs come easier at the end of the game, at least they seem to):

Go for the FG = 5%

Go for the TD = 10%

Still clearly, you go for the TD.

WHY THEY DON"T HAVE THIS ALL FIGURED OUT IN ADVANCE, I'LL NEVER KNOW!!!!!!ELEVEN

tk13
11-01-2005, 12:38 PM
Wow, we've whipped out some heavy mathematics.

And just for the record, don't forget that DV is a stat freak, he very well could've had a decent knowledge of the probability of all those different scenarios. We've all heard him at a press conference rattle off numbers.