Reid is a terrible chess player

[davewan]

Andy Reid is apparently incapable of thinking several moves ahead. As an NFL head coach, he should have been able to quickly think through what he would have done if he had the ball at the goal line in a tie game with 2:30 to go and 4 downs to score. He should have been able to easily deduce that he would do exactly what Cincinnati did. But he didn't. And that's absolutely incredible.

Sadly, it's clear that he has no idea that his drop dead core philosophy should be, "If you're going to beat me, it's not going to be because my best player was standing on the sidelines, it's going to be because you stopped him while he was on the field."

Because Reid could not bring himself to do what was necessary - in other words, to let the other team score - to get his best player back on the field with time on the clock to win the game, he permitted Cincinnati to win that game. It was HIS failure and his alone.

It's not a question of not competing on defense if you let the other team score. It's a question of what in that situation is your best chance to win. And the Chiefs' best chance to win wasn't to stop Cincinnati. They were going to score. The question was how much time - if any - would be on the clock with they did. The Chiefs' best chance to win was to get Mahomes back on the field as fast as possible, no matter the cost.

No matter how big a steaming pile of dogsh*t the officials were, no matter how stupid Spagnuolo was in how he failed to stop Chase, no matter the holding call on the kick return touchdown or Tyreke dropping the ball in the first half...everything comes down to Reid's lack of a philosophy that says if he's going to lose, it's not going to be with his best guy standing on the sidelines.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by davewan

Ask me if I give a **** what you think.

Yet you thought we’d so gratefully give a **** what you have to say that you started your own thread to say shit that’s been discussed countless times here over the past 24 hours.

Douchetool.

[Nickhead]

Originally Posted by Fish

Gentleman's game....

i didn't realize how many women are that bad at strip chess

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

This is the Potato Stroganoff Hamburger Helper of threads

It's certainly no Lasagna HBH

[kccrow]

Have you even thought about how ****ing stupid you sound right now? Or how stupid the "let them score" crowd sounds as a whole?

Let's work through this because derp...

The Bengals received the ball with 6:01 left in regulation. At this point, the thought of getting the ball back should have been extremely high.

At the point of the 3rd and 27 conversion, there was 3:19 remaining. With the 2-minute warning, there was absolutely no reason to be concerned that the Chiefs couldn't get the ball back.

Fast-forward to the 2:00 minute warning and its 1st and Goal for Cincinnati. This is where the derp's really begin to kick in with "let them score" despite KC having two timeouts.

So the logic here is:
1) Let them score, putting KC down 7 (presumably) with about 1:50 left to play and 2 timeouts
2) Try to stop them, possibly putting KC down 3 instead of 7 (and even potentially remain tied), with about 0;50 left to play and 0 timeouts.

Option 2 affords the opportunity for CIN to make mistakes that end up costing them points, the game, or both while option 1 does not. It also affords KC the opportunity to win the game so long as CIN doesn't score a TD. Let's also face the fact Reid would not go for 2 if he were down 7, he'd play to tie, which makes your "let them score" mantra sound even more ridiculous.

Had KC not committed a penalty on the first 4th and goal from the 1, they force CIN to replay 4th and goal from the 11, where they undoubtedly kick a FG with 0:58 (this is under the assumption that Mixon got the ball across the goal line, which it certainly looked like, else KC declines the penalty and gets 1st down from the 1/2 yard line or so).

Had KC not committed a penalty on the second 4th and goal, they would have held CIN scoreless and had the ball with 0:50 left and a 1st down from their own 1.

Both circumstances here, that happened under option 2, should have resulted in KC getting the ball back with nearly a minute left and only down 3 or remaining tied. CIN executed the series exactly how should have been expected. Run and force KC to use timeouts, then run it again and milk as much clock as possible. The Chiefs knew exactly how much time they'd end up with if that process happened.

Reid should not have let them score at any point unless the first play got CIN first and goal from the 1. Two extremely timely penalties are the reason the Chiefs lost, not Reid's decision matrix. Following the second KC penalty, there was no option to "let them score."

And that's how I know you're a ****ing idiot. Not a ****ing sane person would let them score when they are almost assured to get the ball back with a minute left in that situation.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by davewan

It's instructive that not a single reply has refuted a thing I wrote, but at best suggested that Reid is above criticism.

Your post is ****ing reeruned, that's why.

Those types of posts get mocked, not discussed.

You're effectively stating that the Chiefs should've allowed 7 points instead of attempting to allow only 3. Giving up 7 demands that we score a TD with little to no time at all, rather than just 3 points, which gives the Chiefs much stronger odds of at least forcing the game into OT, assuming they couldn't get eh 7 to win it all.

The defense forced the Bengals into a 4th down situation, which means Reid was RIGHT. Now had this shit ref team not been flag happy, we would've gotten the ball back with enough time to either win or tie.

It's ****ing hilarious watching people like you question Reid's game management when it's painfully obvious that they have no ****ing clue what they're talking about, but want to rant after the fact with their revisionist history.

[Easy 6]

Oh man, do I vaguely remember repping this noob the other night?

Kinda thinking I don't wanna know the answer...

**** me running

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Have you even thought about how ****ing stupid you sound right now? Or how stupid the "let them score" crowd sounds as a whole?

Let's work through this because derp...

The Bengals received the ball with 6:01 left in regulation. At this point, the thought of getting the ball back should have been extremely high.

At the point of the 3rd and 27 conversion, there was 3:19 remaining. With the 2-minute warning, there was absolutely no reason to be concerned that the Chiefs couldn't get the ball back.

Fast-forward to the 2:00 minute warning and its 1st and Goal for Cincinnati. This is where the derp's really begin to kick in with "let them score" despite KC having two timeouts.

So the logic here is:
1) Let them score, putting KC down 7 (presumably) with about 1:50 left to play and 2 timeouts
2) Try to stop them, possibly putting KC down 3 instead of 7 (and even potentially remain tied), with about 0;50 left to play and 0 timeouts.

Option 2 affords the opportunity for CIN to make mistakes that end up costing them points, the game, or both while option 1 does not. It also affords KC the opportunity to win the game so long as CIN doesn't score a TD. Let's also face the fact Reid would not go for 2 if he were down 7, he'd play to tie, which makes your "let them score" mantra sound even more ridiculous.

Had KC not committed a penalty on the first 4th and goal from the 1, they force CIN to replay 4th and goal from the 11, where they undoubtedly kick a FG with 0:58 (this is under the assumption that Mixon got the ball across the goal line, which it certainly looked like, else KC declines the penalty and gets 1st down from the 1/2 yard line or so).

Had KC not committed a penalty on the second 4th and goal, they would have held CIN scoreless and had the ball with 0:50 left and a 1st down from their own 1.

Both circumstances here, that happened under option 2, should have resulted in KC getting the ball back with nearly a minute left and only down 3 or remaining tied. CIN executed the series exactly how should have been expected. Run and force KC to use timeouts, then run it again and milk as much clock as possible. The Chiefs knew exactly how much time they'd end up with if that process happened.

Reid should not have let them score at any point unless the first play got CIN first and goal from the 1. Two extremely timely penalties are the reason the Chiefs lost, not Reid's decision matrix. Following the second KC penalty, there was no option to "let them score."

And that's how I know you're a ****ing idiot. Not a ****ing sane person would let them score when they are almost assured to get the ball back with a minute left in that situation.

Correct. Long version of my same post, but this is correct.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by davewan

It's instructive that not a single reply has refuted a thing I wrote, but at best suggested that Reid is above criticism.

They made the goal line stand, of course with the penalty bullshit... it wasn't until they got the automatic first down that it was suddenly a bad decision.

The thing about the strategy is the Bengals knew they couldn't screw around and give Mahomes the ball back only up by 3, and IMO that's what made it so interesting, and not a completely black and white they HAVE to ___.

If you hold them to a FG, :50 to Mahomes is all day to get in FG range... and I would expect the Bengals to score on 1st or 2nd down in that situation anyway.

It took a very specific set of circumstances with offsetting holding calls and an illegal hands to the face on 4th down to make the choice "wrong", much less extrapolate it out to the entirety of Reid's career.

[ToxSocks]

It seems to me that the OP is a terrible chess player.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by davewan

It's instructive that not a single reply has refuted a thing I wrote, but at best suggested that Reid is above criticism.

You are certainly a hero for your message board post and we are honestly just lucky we get to read your content.

Keep on continuously proving your doubters wrong by using your keyboard to post at a place online that is totally full of dumbasses pretending anyone knows who you are or cares even a little bit.

[TinyEvel]

This is typical fan chat after a loss like we just had.

Here in San Francisco, it was all over the radio after Chiefs beat them in the Super Bowl.

Listening to that, for the first time after being a Chiefs fan for so long, it finally made sense: losing close games is worse than being blown-out. Because with a narrow loss there will be, like, five things in the game that could have changed the outcome, and they will haunt you for a week or longer (we Chiefs fans have so many of these games they have nicknames like the "no punt" game, or the "pass batted back to the QB for a touchdown" game, or the "beaten with six filed goals" game, etc.) So you try to nit-pick those things to make sense of it, to somehow convince yourself your team is still number one, and any bounce of the ball or (no) flip of the flag would have put your team on top.

Well, they lost this week.

On to the playoffs.


BTW the best player on the field only got our team to a field goal and tie game with a few minutes left.

[eDave]

Yea. It's not like our offense was doing shit the second half. Andy knows wtf he is doing.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by davewan

Ask me if I give a **** what you think.

ahhh dude, just stop.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Awww. Someone replied to you with something thoughtful and you didn't get enduring adulation on an anonymous message board and now you're lashing out.

I kinda like you to be honest.

You seem nice.

[RealSNR]

Remember when Bill Belichick put in Gronk as a hail mary defender and he whiffed totally and the Patriots lost?

Bill Belichick is a terrible chess player