Einstein

Your chances of scoring on any given drive nearly TRIPLE when you start on your opponents 45 yard line. In addition to this, the way your opponent plays defense also changes once you pass mid-field in a sudden death scenario. With only 45 yards to the endzone, there is a legitimate chance of scoring on every play. The defense must play a soft shell or cover 2/3 defense to protect the endzone. This leaves the short to intermediate range more susceptible. And none of this even touches on the psychological component of your defense walking onto a field knowing theyre only 45 yards away from losing.

Scoring is irrelevant in terms of potential to score. The more drives you have, the more potential you have to score. Whether you do so or not. Quote

I agree. This was only a tiny factor, but one I thought interesting none-the-less. Probably very little, and here is why. Most teams do not have the offensive firepower of Kansas City. If you gave the Lions an extra 2 possessions per game, there is a very likely chance that they score nothing with those two possessions. Same goes for probably a dozen other teams. So when looking at an overall aggregate, you are likely to see very little difference. BUT, when you give an offensive juggernaut 2 extra possessions - like KC, or Buffalo - You are much more likely to get another score (and perhaps a win) out of the additional attempts. .

Scoring is irrelevant in terms of potential to score. The more drives you have, the more potential you have to score. Whether you do so or not.

Of course. I never said it was unfair.

Much of the media is focusing on the inequality of OT due to a coin toss that allows one team to win without the other touching the ball. However, I hypothesize that both coin tosses are of similar blame. To be clear, I do not contend that the original (before game) coin toss rules are unfair or need to be changed. This is not a complaint post or an excuse post. It's simply something I find interesting. Coin Toss 2: When you win the coin toss in OT, you are awarded not only the ball but also an opportunity to “steal” an entire possession from your opponent. That is, with a TD, your opponent never touches the ball. This is Minus-1 drive for the coin toss loser. Coin Toss 1: The pre-game coin toss also comes with the potential to gain an extra possession. When you win the coin toss before regulation, you are not only awarded the choice to receive or defer, but you are also awarded an opportunity to “steal” a possession from your opponent if you play it right. This happens when you defer, then possess the ball last in the 2nd quarter, and receive it again during the 3rd quarter kickoff. This is also Minus-1 drive for the coin toss loser. Because the Chiefs won BOTH coin tosses, they were able to “steal” TWO entire possessions from the Bills. The Chiefs ended up with 11 Drives/Possessions, and the Bills ended up with 9 Drives/Possessions. Because there were no turnovers on either side, the balance stayed at 2 stolen possessions. The Chiefs scored 42 points on 11 possessions and the Bills scored 36 points on 9 Possessions. Summary: The Bills actually scored more per possession than the Chiefs. But the opponent simply had two entire extra drives in which to score with. PS, I took a look at every playoff game over the past 3 years in the NFL, and on average the winner of the coin toss had close to 1.5 more minutes of possession. The average possession in the NFL is about 2.5 minutes. Which tells me that the winner of the coin toss is a stealing a possession in about 2 of every 3 games. Ish. .

If you lose the coin toss, you’re probably going to lose the game. If you lose the onside kick attempt, you’re definitely going to lose the game. I’ll take “probably” over “definitely”.

No they didn’t. Here is before and after the timout. They never showed 0 blitz. They showed the exact same alignment on both plays, and on both plays Poyer moved back into Cover 2 post snap. Before Timeout After Timeout

Correct. And the term has evolved into broader usage as an idiom that describes anything that is no longer interesting, useful, as designed, or smart. In other words, something that is on the decline. I realize that this is the internet and therefore everyone wants to argue semantics, but this is a bit ridiculous.

You make a good point and I thought about that as well. You may very well be right, but my rational was to keep two players on the DL to get their hands into passing lanes.

Kelce and Mahomes seems to think they did… Rush two.

Good point. I actually just made a thread about this topic:

I need to do some homework to determine whether my gut matches actual statistical output (reality), but it certainly feels that McDermott’s defensive timeouts often precede a successful play by the opposing offense. To that point, Mahomes’ admitted that the Bills defensive timeout gave the Chiefs time to talk about changing Kelce’s route to take advantage of the defense: “The play to Travis, he wasn’t necessarily supposed to do that, but after the timeout we got a look at what the defense was doing, and he said it to me, ‘If they do it again, I’m going to take it up the middle between both the guys guarding me,'” - Patrick Mahomes 1) My hypothesis is that defensive timeouts in key situations are not helping the team. 2) Why would you take a defensive timeout only to roll out in the same coverage?

Youre right. It was a failure of coaching.

That’s the odd thing. McDermott and the coaching staff had the entire TV timeout (after the TD with 13 seconds remaining) to come up with a plan. It would be slightly understandable if he had to think on his feet. But instead, he had time to formulate a plan and simply failed.

Thanks. Wish I didn’t have to make it.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Great coaching is typically comprised of a mixture of situational game awareness (see: game theory), as well as traditional X’s and O’s. You can not have one without the other. McDermott is a good coach but his achilles heel is often in his game theory and situational game awareness. Lets examine the final 13 seconds while thinking through each decision and how game theory can be applied. 1a) Pass Rush: In football, teams rush the passer in an attempt to force a quick decision by the QB, resulting in less time for receiving options to get open. Due to this, teams often rush 4 or 5 defenders. 1b) Game Theory Analysis: In a situation where a team needs to drive 35 yards in 13 seconds, the QB is already forced into making a quick decision. Therefore, using situational game awareness, we can hypothesize that 4 defensive line rushers are not needed in this situation, as the very limited time left in the game will force the QB’s decision making far more than your pass rushers can. 1c) Potential Solution: Rush 2 defensive linemen. Why even bother with only two? Because you want hands in passing lanes. Pick your two most intuitive linemen that are best at getting their hands in the air and tipping passes at the line. —— 2a) Pass Coverage: In football, pass coverage is designed to limit the opponent from moving the ball through the air. Traditionally, this can be accomplished via man, zone or a hybrid scheme. Penalties such as defensive holding and pass interference are your enemy, as this results in the ball being advanced down the field which negates your objective. 2b) Game Theory Analysis: In a situation where a team needs to drive 35 yards in 13 seconds, they must pass the ball. This makes the opponents offense one dimensional and gives the defense an advantage. With only 2 defensive linemen rushing the QB, you are left with 9 players in coverage. Since there is no need to diagnose a potential run play, linebackers are less needed here as well. Defensive holding is the defenses friend in this situation, as time is NOT added back onto the clock in the case of a penalty. The time is simply gone, and the offense is only 5 further yards down the field. 2c) Potential Solution; Place 8 defensive backs and 1 coverage LB in pass coverage. The coverage LB gives a hard shove (read: hold) to Kelce off the line of scrimmage and plays man coverage on him. Behind the coverage LB is a defensive back bracketing Kelce’s route. This delays Kelce’s route and double covers him. On the other side of the field, 6 DB’s cover the 3 WR’s that are lined up in a bunch formation. There are 3 “up” DB’s and 3 “bracket” DB’s. The “up” defensive backs are in man to man coverage with the WR’s while the remaining 3 DB’s are bracketing behind them (this is essentially modern day double coverage). The result is that each receiving option is double covered while leaving 1 safety back deep in a support role. 2 DL 1 LB 8 DB (7 in direct coverage and 1 safety) . . . . . . . . . . . This is just one option, and may not even be the best option. But it is better than what was used. In summary, I value McDermott as a quality coach but hope he spends time this offseason evaluating his game theory and practicing scenarios that will make him more prepared for the next situation.

We should have had 2 or 3 d linemen rushing. Not 4. With 3 d-linemen, you can double every receiver on the field. One can hold/shove them at the line. The other brackets behind for extra coverage. It was really poor defense.

This is not a rare tactic and something the Bills should have used. To let Kelce just run off the line of scrimmage and no one touching him for 30(?) yards is unacceptable.

Squib and you win the game. Its that simple in my opinion.

Perfect conditions for both offenses.

A national sales tax would in no way make up for income tax. I am very open to a national flat tax though.

Hate to break it to you, but your SS number is already all over the dark web.

Admittedly, this was my first hope. That he was sharing some secret he knew about the Chiefs lol