Has Anyone...?

[Chief Chief]

...considered that Herm decided to go for 2 points against Chokeland due PRIMARILY to the fact that Rayner had missed a FG earlier in the game?

[RustShack]

or because one point pretty much would of been the same as no points, but two points would have been able to make it a one possesion game instead of a two possesion game. (because he knows we can't score TD's)

[chasedude]

...considered that Herm decided to go for 2 points against Chokeland due PRIMARILY to the fact that Rayner had missed a FG earlier in the game?

The two points would have put the team exactly at one score over. But yes, if Rayner hadn't missed it there would have been no need.

Screw it, they should've converted that 2 point anyway :banghead: :cuss:

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Thats just plain silly talk!

[Mr. Laz]

or because one point pretty much would of been the same as no points, but two points would have been able to make it a one possesion game instead of a two possesion game. (because he knows we can't score TD's)
not true at all ... that extra point would of made the faiders only get a tie with a field goal on the final drive instead of winning by a point.


going for 2 was stupid and this thread is just another lame homer excuse thread.

[Simply Red]

not true at all ... that extra point would of made the faiders only get a tie with a field goal on the final drive instead of winning by a point.


going for 2 was stupid and this thread is just another lame homer excuse thread.
gosh dang. You are mean!

[DaFace]

It just depends on what you thought the Raiders were capable of. Prior to the conversion, we were up by 5. If you think they're likely to score a TD, you go for 2 to make it a 7 point game. If you think they're likely to score two field goals, you take the XP to make it a six point game. Herm obviously thought it was more likely that they'd score one TD than two FG's.

[MahiMike]

Cut his ass!

[cdcox]

I wasted an hour building a very detailed spreadsheet that considered all the possibilites using team specific TD rates and FG rates and couple of assumptions.

Going for 2 is probably the right move. It gives about a 3 to 5% edge compared to kicking the point, depending on the assumptions used in the model.

Assume each team will get 2 possessions in last 11 minutes.

Oakland TD rate on first drive: 15% (real data)
Oakland FG rate oin first drive: 11.5% (real data)

KC TD rate on first drive: 16% (real data)
KC FG rate on first drive: 14% (real data)

A "desperation drive" is a drive where you need a specific score (either a FG or TD) to win the game. The other team is playing a prevent.

Assumed FG desperation drive success rate: 40 to 50% (I tried a range)
Assumed TD desparation drive success rate: 25 rto 30% (range)

2-point conversion success rate: 43% (real data)

From these data and assumptions, I summed the odds of every 4 drive scenario that gave the Chiefs a win.

[Hammock Parties]

Herm may have very well saved us the game. Imagine if we had converted the two-pointer. Oakland may have decided to go for it on fourth down instead of settling for a field goal on their second-to-last drive. Then they could have scored a touchdown and our offense would have had to SCORE AGAIN!

GOOD JOB, HERM!

[CoMoChief]

I dont know what everyone is bitching about. It was the RIGHT CALL!!!! Try to score enough points so that they have to score a TD to win. Is it really bad for a coach believing a team can gain 2 yards, even if it is us?

If you make 2, then they must score a TD, which was almost impossible to them.

Fail to make 2 then your defense was playing well enough to stop them. It was the right call.

[Logical]

Stupid call when it allows the other team to win with just a field goal.

[FAX]

I wasted an hour building a very detailed spreadsheet that considered all the possibilites using team specific TD rates and FG rates and couple of assumptions.

Going for 2 is probably the right move. It gives about a 3 to 5% edge compared to kicking the point, depending on the assumptions used in the model.

Assume each team will get 2 possessions in last 11 minutes.

Oakland TD rate on first drive: 15% (real data)
Oakland FG rate oin first drive: 11.5% (real data)

KC TD rate on first drive: 16% (real data)
KC FG rate on first drive: 14% (real data)

A "desperation drive" is a drive where you need a specific score (either a FG or TD) to win the game. The other team is playing a prevent.

Assumed FG desperation drive success rate: 40 to 50% (I tried a range)
Assumed TD desparation drive success rate: 25 rto 30% (range)

2-point conversion success rate: 43% (real data)

From these data and assumptions, I summed the odds of every 4 drive scenario that gave the Chiefs a win.

I'm afraid I need to see this in titty graph format before I can concur, Mr. cdcox.

FAX

[Iowanian]

Going for 2 was the right call at the time, its what I wanted, and I'm not going to complain because the players didn't execute the play.

Oakland had scored a TD in 4 plays and I wanted a 7 point lead, 5 was still 2 FGs and the way the defense had been playing, it wasn't unthinkable.

now....at the end, was I expecting a last second, heartbreaking 13-12 loss? yeah.

[Rain Man]

not true at all ... that extra point would of made the faiders only get a tie with a field goal on the final drive instead of winning by a point.


going for 2 was stupid and this thread is just another lame homer excuse thread.

Am I going to have to start thumping people on the nose with my newspaper again?

They only needed a field goal on the final try because they made another field goal after the two-point attempt. Based on my subjective opinion, there's a lot more risk of making a 1-point PAT and knowing you'll lose if the other team scores 1 touchdown, than of attempting a two point play and knowing that, IF AND ONLY IF YOU MISS IT, the other team can win IF AND ONLY IF they make exactly two field goals.

The breakdown is:

Make 2 point play: Other team needs a 7-point play to tie, 8 to win.
Miss 2 point play: Other team needs a 6 point play or two 3-point plays to win.

Make 1 point play: Other team needs a 7-point play to win
Miss 1 point play: Other team needs a 6 point play or two 3-point plays to tie.

The bottom line is that, other than the low-odds scenario of the other team getting two field goals, missing a 2 point play is equivalent to making a 1 point play: a touchdown will win it for the opposition. Good defense or not, a touchdown can happen really fast on a single fluke play.

[StcChief]

Am I going to have to start thumping people on the nose with my newspaper again?

They only needed a field goal on the final try because they made another field goal after the two-point attempt. Based on my subjective opinion, there's a lot more risk of making a 1-point PAT and knowing you'll lose if the other team scores 1 touchdown, than of attempting a two point play and knowing that, IF AND ONLY IF YOU MISS IT, the other team can win IF AND ONLY IF they make exactly two field goals.

The breakdown is:

Make 2 point play: Other team needs a 7-point play to tie, 8 to win.
Miss 2 point play: Other team needs a 6 point play or two 3-point plays to win.

Make 1 point play: Other team needs a 7-point play to win
Miss 1 point play: Other team needs a 6 point play or two 3-point plays to tie.

The bottom line is that, other than the low-odds scenario of the other team getting two field goals, missing a 2 point play is equivalent to making a 1 point play: a touchdown will win it for the opposition. Good defense or not, a touchdown can happen really fast on a single fluke play.

going for 2 made little sense in this case.... unless it was a fake EP move.

[unlurking]

Going for 2 was the right call at the time, its what I wanted, and I'm not going to complain because the players didn't execute the play.

Oakland had scored a TD in 4 plays and I wanted a 7 point lead, 5 was still 2 FGs and the way the defense had been playing, it wasn't unthinkable.

now....at the end, was I expecting a last second, heartbreaking 13-12 loss? yeah.
Agree with you completely.

Can anyone tell me if Huard tripped over his own feet, or did he get stepped on at the line. I remember seeing stumble backwards at the snap and knew we wouldn't get it, but I couldn't tell from the replay what caused it.

[Iowanian]

I remember seeing stumble backwards at the snap and knew we wouldn't get it, but I couldn't tell from the replay what caused it.

It would be pretty difficult for even Chuck Norris to look nimble coming away from center with Hootie hanging my his scrotum like a carp on a june bug.

[DaFace]

Stupid call when it allows the other team to win with just a field goal.

As others have already said, they needed TWO field goals, not one.