Why the hell wouldn’t the Chargers go for it on 4th down in OT?

[PunkinDrublic]

You’re doing better against the Chiefs than anybody thought you would especially with a backup QB. Nobody would fault you if you went for it and it didn’t work out. If I’m a Charger enthusiast, I’d be pissed. That was a gutless call.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

But maybe you are forgetting there is only 10 minutes in OT so if they go down and kick the FG there is probably not much time left.

Now you're relying on an extremely high level of execution from a rookie QB and an offense that hasn't really shown that degree of precision all game.

It's HARD to eat up clock. Especially if/when you get into FG range and the Chiefs still have 2 TOs to use.

Give Mahomes 2 minutes knowing he has all 4 downs to use and that's going to be plenty of time. Now it may well have taken the L off the board (KC's not gonna be able to kick a FG to tie, get a stop and get the ball back to score again), but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they could've milked the clock enough to keep Mahomes from having a real good shot at salvaging the tie and even getting a couple of shots at the end zone for a W.

All the reasons people are giving to not punt the ball are also reasons why you don't want to be kicking FGs either. And they're even heightened by putting Mahomes in 'must have' 4-down territory.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2020/9...-of-nfl-week-2

[Trivers]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Lemme see it. Go ahead and show your work.

From anything I can see, conversion rates on 4th and 1 are historically around 70% (a little less really; around 65% but runs are nearer 70% and Lynn almost certainly would've run it).

So you're gonna take a 30% chance of effectively being dead on arrival so you can get 4 new downs 65 yards away from the end-zone knowing full well that anything less than punching the ball in for 6 leaves you with the same 'shit, Mahomes just needs to get into FG range' situation?

Your ratios are off and you're ignoring a TON of context.

/thread

BTW, I love the way DJ writes. Very articulate. Jealous. You write for a living?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Trivers

/thread

BTW, I love the way DJ writes. Very articulate. Jealous. You write for a living?

Kinda. Lawyer. Mostly just a sit ass and make assistants write for me for a living now. But I used to.

But to be completely clear - DURING the game I absolutely thought Lynn ****ed up. And this morning I was still pretty on the fence about it.

But man, with the benefit of being able to freeze the game at them moment the decision had to be made, there's a LOT of justification for Lynn punting it away. In some ways I think Lynn punting shows a far GREATER grasp of how the whole game was going.

I think Lynn considered all these things that he's being barbecued for and he considered them and made a decision in the heat of battle that took me 18 hours to come to the same conclusion on.

I don't think Lynn's a remarkable coach - but I think he's a solid one and I think he made a wholly defensible decision that looks better the more analysis one is willing to give it.

[Trivers]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Kinda. Lawyer. Mostly just a sit ass and make assistants write for me for a living now. But I used to.

But to be completely clear - DURING the game I absolutely thought Lynn ****ed up. And this morning I was still pretty on the fence about it.

But man, with the benefit of being able to freeze the game at them moment the decision had to be made, there's a LOT of justification for Lynn punting it away. In some ways I think Lynn punting shows a far GREATER grasp of how the whole game was going.

I think Lynn considered all these things that he's being barbecued for and he considered them and made a decision in the heat of battle that took me 18 hours to come to the same conclusion on.

I don't think Lynn's a remarkable coach - but I think he's a solid one and I think he made a wholly defensible decision that looks better the more analysis one is willing to give it.

My gut call at the time was "Punt". Penalty for failure was too high.

Hine sight is 20-20. A chiefs muffed punt, or other turnover, and Lynn is a genius.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Now you're relying on an extremely high level of execution from a rookie QB and an offense that hasn't really shown that degree of precision all game.

It's HARD to eat up clock. Especially if/when you get into FG range and the Chiefs still have 2 TOs to use.

Give Mahomes 2 minutes knowing he has all 4 downs to use and that's going to be plenty of time. Now it may well have taken the L off the board (KC's not gonna be able to kick a FG to tie, get a stop and get the ball back to score again), but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they could've milked the clock enough to keep Mahomes from having a real good shot at salvaging the tie and even getting a couple of shots at the end zone for a W.

All the reasons people are giving to not punt the ball are also reasons why you don't want to be kicking FGs either. And they're even heightened by putting Mahomes in 'must have' 4-down territory.

Their previous drive was 17 plays and chewed up 10+ minutes. Going for it and possibly getting it leaves less time for Mahomes. What is the alternative, punt and give Mahomes 7:47 to get 3 points? Remember the last 3 Chiefs drives we scored on each one. Also their D was gassed, Bosa hardly played in OT because he was to tired.

Punting it pretty much guarantees an L, so you have to be aggressive and go for it IMHO.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Trivers

My gut call at the time was "Punt". Penalty for failure was too high.

Hine sight is 20-20. A chiefs muffed punt, or other turnover, and Lynn is a genius.

Somebody else said it, but your reaction as a fan is often a decent proxy for the wisdom of the decision.

When the punt team came out I thought "phew...it's Patrick time!" so in real time that clearly suggests that I think Lynn made a pussy decision.

Buuuuuuut....I was in the middle of grilling wings and drinking beer. I definitely hadn't given it a ton of thought other than being excited PM got the ball back. Meanwhile I never considered how likely it was he was getting the ball back in some capacity anyway.

I'm betting Lynn did. I'm betting Lynn put a lot more into his calculus on the fly than most are doing this morning at their desk. Because hell, he spent all week preparing for 100 different situations and I'm betting this was one of 'em.

I just think saying "man, you never give the ball to Mahomes..." is way too surface level and isn't giving nearly enough credit to all the things that have to be considered. Things that Lynn almost certainly DID consider and his detractors presently aren't.

[Chiefspants]

This has been a great thread. Much more fun to agonize over decisions that didn't work out when they're made my other teams. Had this been the Chiefs in 2019 (before the SB) it'd have been a trainwreck. This has been way more analytical and objective and I'm all about it. It's also been a microcosm of the league's shift from conventional football logic to a more data driven game where (calculated) risks are encouraged.

Saw one curmudgeon who said if Lynn wasn't willing to go for it on 4th and 1, then he should have deferred and kicked it to the Chiefs to start OT if he was that confident in his defense (remember, the Chiefs would have had to have scored a TD to win). Some of the Chargers forums have been quite lively on this topic.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Their previous drive was 17 plays and chewed up 10+ minutes. Going for it and possibly getting it leaves less time for Mahomes. What is the alternative, punt and give Mahomes 7:47 to get 3 points? Remember the last 3 Chiefs drives we scored on each one. Also their D was gassed, Bosa hardly played in OT because he was to tired.

Punting it pretty much guarantees an L, so you have to be aggressive and go for it IMHO.

And when they failed to pick up a yard, like they had on 5 of their last 6 runs in the 4th/OT, the Chiefs kick a FG and the game is over.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Their previous drive was 17 plays and chewed up 10+ minutes. Going for it and possibly getting it leaves less time for Mahomes. What is the alternative, punt and give Mahomes 7:47 to get 3 points? Remember the last 3 Chiefs drives we scored on each one. Also their D was gassed, Bosa hardly played in OT because he was to tired.

Punting it pretty much guarantees an L, so you have to be aggressive and go for it IMHO.

That 'guaranteed L' required our kicker hit the 2nd longest overtime FG in NFL history to pull off.

I wouldn't say there was anything guaranteed about that outcome.

In many ways a punt could've easily set them up better for a win because it put them ins a situation where they can win it with a FG of their own and left PM/Reid far tighter questions in 3rd/4th down situations.

[htismaqe]

Plus that 17 play drive would have been 12 plays and a punt if Jones hadn't committed a bad penalty.

[lcarus]

There's great points being made for either decision here. If it were me personally though, I would have less regrets going for it and not converting than if I punted and they ended up scoring.

[Megatron96]

I just saw a video where they talked about going for it on 4th down, last week I guess. In the NFL it worked out to something like 55%. Obviously distance made a difference, but for this example we don't have to get into that. We can call it 60% or 70% if you want.

Here's the thing: it didn't take into account what team was going for it, or who they were going against, what players were on the field, who was calling the plays offensively and defensively, what the weather was like, or basically anything that would give the situation context. It was just the situation of 4th down by an average NFL team against any average NFL team, basically in a bubble.

At best that provides a kind of guideline; it's not a fact.

in reality the Chargers held the Chiefs well below their per possession scoring average for the entire game, and the field position strategy had been working for them.

Just look at the Chiefs first 7 possessions for the game:

PUNT
PUNT
PUNT
TD
PUNT
PUNT
FG

If you were Lynn, knowing that out of the Chiefs first 7 possessions, your defense had held them to two scores and 5 punts, wouldn't you feel fairly good about your defense being able to force another punt?

Offensively the Chargers run game went from averaging over 6 yards/play for most of the game, to less than 3 yards per play (I think it was right around 2) for their last three possessions in regulation. In fact, there was string of Chargers runs by Ekeler and Kelley that went for less than a yard/carry during their last three possessions. Even Herbert's runs were only averaging about 2 yards/attempt in the final quarter. Spags was figuring it out.

My point being, that situationally in that moment against this team, going for it on 4th down was suddenly not as cut and dried as "well, we have a 60% (or whatever number you want to use) chance of converting."

The situation on the field had changed, Spags had figured out how to put the brakes on their running game.

But the Chargers defensive front was still collapsing the pocket, was still winning that field position battle for the most part, excepting one crazy miracle pass and catch by Mahomes and Hill.

Situationally it was probably the right call. Based on what had occurred during the game, Lynn had about a 60-70% chance of his defense standing tall and getting his offense the ball back, or the game ending in a tie, which for the Chargers would've been almost as good as a win.

And let's be clear: I'm not saying that Anthony Lynn definitely made the right decision not going for it on 4th down in OT. I'm saying I understand why he did it, and I don't have a problem with it.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

I just saw a video where they talked about going for it on 4th down, last week I guess. In the NFL it worked out to something like 55%. Obviously distance made a difference, but for this example we don't have to get into that. We can call it 60% or 70% if you want.

Here's the thing: it didn't take into account what team was going for it, or who they were going against, what players were on the field, who was calling the plays offensively and defensively, what the weather was like, or basically anything that would give the situation context. It was just the situation of 4th down by an average NFL team against any average NFL team, basically in a bubble.

At best that provides a kind of guideline; it's not a fact.

in reality the Chargers held the Chiefs well below their per possession scoring average for the entire game, and the field position strategy had been working for them.

Just look at the Chiefs first 7 possessions for the game:

PUNT
PUNT
PUNT
TD
PUNT
PUNT
FG

If you were Lynn, knowing that out of the Chiefs first 7 possessions, your defense had held them to two scores and 5 punts, wouldn't you feel fairly good about your defense being able to force another punt?

Offensively the Chargers run game went from averaging over 6 yards/play for most of the game, to less than 3 yards per play (I think it was right around 2) for their last three possessions in regulation. In fact, there was string of Chargers runs by Ekeler and Kelley that went for less than a yard/carry during their last three possessions. Even Herbert's runs were only averaging about 2 yards/attempt in the final quarter. Spags was figuring it out.

My point being, that situationally in that moment against this team, going for it on 4th down was suddenly not as cut and dried as "well, we have a 60% (or whatever number you want to use) chance of converting."

The situation on the field had changed, Spags had figured out how to put the brakes on their running game.

But the Chargers defensive front was still collapsing the pocket, was still winning that field position battle for the most part, excepting one crazy miracle pass and catch by Mahomes and Hill.

Situationally it was probably the right call. Based on what had occurred during the game, Lynn had about a 60-70% chance of his defense standing tall and getting his offense the ball back, or the game ending in a tie, which for the Chargers would've been almost as good as a win.

And let's be clear: I'm not saying that Anthony Lynn definitely made the right decision not going for it on 4th down in OT. I'm saying I understand why he did it, and I don't have a problem with it.

It's Chiefsplanet.

Patrick Mahomes scoring is guaranteed.

The Chiefs defense giving up a first down on 4th and 1 is guaranteed.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And when they failed to pick up a yard, like they had on 5 of their last 6 runs in the 4th/OT, the Chiefs kick a FG and the game is over.

You have a big strong young QB, pick a better play but if you punt you are losing so you might as well go down swinging.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That 'guaranteed L' required our kicker hit the 2nd longest overtime FG in NFL history to pull off.

I wouldn't say there was anything guaranteed about that outcome.

In many ways a punt could've easily set them up better for a win because it put them ins a situation where they can win it with a FG of their own and left PM/Reid far tighter questions in 3rd/4th down situations.

Sure but we all know that is because the refs were ****ing us. We could have scored a TD if it wasn't for the non-existent holding calls.