How do you feel about the attempted laterals last week?

[Dunerdr]

Are we going to see more? Should we? Is this the next evolution?

[Hayneplane]

Originally Posted by tk13

Not sure if we'll ever see it, but that really would be the next frontier of football if someone got really aggressive. The same way some NBA teams play positionless basketball. Be able to field a team with 2-3 former QBs out there you could trust to run laterals, double passes, things like that. You'd be able to create some real matchup nightmares.

As someone who has been a lifelong rugby league fan prior to getting into NFL I have always wanted this to be tried properly at scale but with much better technique I.E. not with the flea flicker pushing the ball technique that tends to make the trajectory of the ball stay very low and dip.

Genuine running with the ball in 2 hands making it possible to pass left or right or take contact if needed would be a very good way of negating pass rushers and holding linebackers and safeties.

[Chiefnj2]

I liked the aggressiveness of the laterals when they were going against a high octane opponent and our QB was limited.

[ThaVirus]

We won so I will say I can laugh about it now, but it was too risky for too little gain, IMO. You're talking about a possible turnover or maybe McKinnon gaining an additional 10-15 yards (I don't think he scores there..)

With an offense as good as the one we've got, we don't need to resort to that sort of stuff.

[Iowanian]

I don't care to see that stuff during the regular season except for extreme situations at the end of a half or towards the end of the game when they really need a score.

That said....To get to the Superbowl...or IN the SuperBowl? Nothing is off the table for me as a fan. Let it rip.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

We won so I will say I can laugh about it now, but it was too risky for too little gain, IMO. You're talking about a possible turnover or maybe McKinnon gaining an additional 10-15 yards (I don't think he scores there..)

With an offense as good as the one we've got, we don't need to resort to that sort of stuff.

This is exactly how I feel about it.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Whoa, slow down. Football coaches just started figuring out not going for it at the 40 is dumb. They still dont believe you should go for two early in games. Hold your horses. Slow progress is needed for football coaches. Baby steps. Too much will overwhelm them as it contradicts what they've always thought to be true.

The same way in the NBA. In 1980 they shot an avg of 2.0 3PT FGs per game. By 2000 it was 13.7. Now its 34.

You shouldn't

[ChiTown]

I dig them - football should be fun

That said, I'd probably be more inclined to enjoy them if it was a 3-5 yard lateral and not 10

[PHOG]

Yes, that was a little too far for that, he should have been closer. And it was an extremely good bounce once it hit the ground. Got lucky there it seems.

Other than that, if Andy says it's good, it's good.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

I dig them - football should be fun

That said, I'd probably be more inclined to enjoy them if it was a 3-5 yard lateral and not 10

That’s my issue. Kelce is an ex quarterback so technically he can make these kinds of trick plays. And the guy is so committed to winning we know it’s not showboating. He’s exploiting a tendency. But I’m not sure he has a kill switch. He’s so committed to making it work that he will force something when it’s not there. That to me is the risk and why I don’t love it.

[seamonster]

Smart play. Looked like the receiver had pulled the corner out of his zone and the linebacker had curled around to take down kelce. Had Kelce made a five yard toss it could have been a TD. Nobody around the running back.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

We know Travis would never do this type of thing to showboat. I do wonder if a big part of this was knowing he was hurt and trying to pass off to someone who could run better or take more hits. Or if he just knew the bengals were going to swarm at him as soon as he got the ball knowing they bulletin board posting that they’d knock him around as soon as he got the ball. I’m guessing both. Guy is way too football smart to try this multiple times if there wasn’t a strategy in mind

That was my thought at the time, Travis was trying to avoid being hit with the way his back was.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Whoa, slow down. Football coaches just started figuring out not going for it at the 40 is dumb. They still dont believe you should go for two early in games. Hold your horses. Slow progress is needed for football coaches. Baby steps. Too much will overwhelm them as it contradicts what they've always thought to be true.

The same way in the NBA. In 1980 they shot an avg of 2.0 3PT FGs per game. By 2000 it was 13.7. Now its 34.

The evolution of the NBA is this:

The refs don't call traveling or carrying the ball anymore
Nobody plays legitimate defense anymore

I quit watching the NBA years ago. It's pathetic, at best. Guys don't even have to try to get open looks on the perimeter and even when they do they just travel and carry their way to one. Real great stuff.

As for the NFL, you're pretty spot on but teams only really started getting into analytics heavily 10 years ago and they continually work to enhance it. Coaches are still going to do what they feel is the best outcome for the way the game is flowing, whether they 100% buy into analytics or not. Going for it at the 40 isn't automatic. While the analytics say go for it if it's 4th and 7 or less, the ideal marker is usually 4th and 4 or less. I think Reid is too conservative in this respect but he's an old dog.

The Sporting News put out a pretty sweet set of graphs a couple of weeks back that really backed up the notion to go for it on 4th down in several instances. I've attached them for everyone.

[Archie Bunker]

All for it

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Lzen

You shouldn't

You absolutely should (go for 2) in a part of the game where achieving the most expected points is the goal, which would be ALWAYS in 0-0 or 7-7 or 14-7 etc scores early in games. And definitely in most scenarios when behind.

The expected value of kicking an extra point is .952 points. The expected value for going for it is .964. The difference actually increases to favor going for it even more the better your offense is. Its small margins but you should always make the best decision. Football coaches simply don't go for two enough because of fans and job security. Humans don't like to fail emotionally. So they get villified if they go for two and lost by one point but lauded way less if they made 3 (2) point conversions and won by 2.

(Edit - I believe this has some extra point data from when it was a closer kick so if anything the gap is even WIDER favoring going for two)

https://www.boydsbets.com/nfl-two-po...-success-rate/

To further expand, teams in general have much greater success when they RUN vs PASS on two-point conversions. If you've read my posts I'm a huge proponent of ALMOST never running the ball except on short yardage. I actually think many teams actually pass TOO MUCH on 2 yards or less situations and the data supports that.

https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/going_for_two

[htismaqe]

We should just let supercomputers call the plays.