HawkShack.com

by **RiverDog** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:48 am

WTF was Pete thinking going for it on 4th and goal on the 2 with plenty of time left in the 4th quarter? That's the worst game management decision Pete's made this season. He did not give us the best chance to win yesterday.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:28 am

Like clockwork.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:23 am

Exactly. The receivers had been dreadful all day, and Unger just got carted off. I felt bad about it when they lined up to go.and then when I saw the unimaginative play design and poor execution I had a feeling that was going to be the difference in the game.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:01 pm

Hind sight 20/20. I felt the decision was a sound one, while the play call and execution was far from it. I liked the decision, and not like many that change said opinion after the fact. Would this thread be here if Seattle had converted, and then proceeded to roll? I kind of doubt it.

by **obiken** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:06 pm

I agree River, especially with Max Unger out. Max is the most underrated lineman in the NFL. Our Running game was humming along with him back now we are screwed again, all the while trying to beat teams that are better teams than we are.
You take the FG and get a stop, your going to have to get a stop anyhow. Steve is money inside the 40 anyhow a couple good plays and he kicks a winner.

BTW I am really sorry what you are going through bubba I hope it all works out!! Your a good guy!

Obi

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:13 pm

Someone, tell me how it plays out if the kick the FG? They didn't drive afterwards did they? No? So by my count, they still lose by one. Does that make it a "better" loss? Nah, this is just more ego stroking, "I know better" garbage.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:19 pm

Who knows what would have happened. The rest of the game would have unfolded differently, but it would mean that if our Defense did hold them after the kickoff, we only had to get into FG position for a chance to win.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:55 pm

31 Yards gained after that 4th down. Received the ball on the 44 of KC after the missed 4th and went nowhere. There is something to be said for reading the game situations, and prior success , Seattle's best chance to win that game was there, and they simply didn't get it done. It happens, I applauded the decision then, and I will not backtrack because of moaning now. The play call was poor IMHO and the execution was poor as well, the decision, however, was solid.

Instead of one chance, the Seahawks got two shots at winning that game.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:20 pm

Yup. They had their chances and blew it, but they really haven't been that good running in the Red Zone or short yardage and losing Unger made it worse.
Some people think you should take the points when you can get them and being down by within a FG is easier to win. Sort of like Atlanta against us a couple of years ago.

What's done is done, so it doesn't really matter now.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:35 pm

NorthHawk wrote:Who knows what would have happened. The rest of the game would have unfolded differently, but it would mean that if our Defense did hold them after the kickoff, we only had to get into FG position for a chance to win.

Exactly. Of course, hindsight is 50/50, just like any other decision. If the prerequisite for discussing a topic is that it can't be in hindsight, they might as well shut this place down.

Even under normal circumstances, ie if Unger wasn't hurt, even if we had a Cam Newton-type quarterback that could sneak it in, even if we had a Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant as a receiver, the best odds in that situation was to take the FG. Not having those types of resources available made the decision even worse. There was enough time left and TO's remaining on both sides that several scenarios could have quite reasonably unfolded. KC could have just as easily taken the ball back and scored themselves, either by kicking their own FG or scoring a TD.

Kansas City is solid against the run in the red zone, not having allowed a rushing TD this season, effectively taking away our most valuable weapon in Beast. Had we had a run/pass option available, it wouldn't have been so bad of a risk, but a dedicated pass play inside the 5 with guys like Kearse and Baldwin as our big red zone targets on 4th down?

by **obiken** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:47 pm

No one will know for sure. My point was Human, that we kick the FG with 7 minutes left. We kick off, stop them and get the ball back with 3 minutes, drive to the 30 or 40 and kick another FG. In that situation it just seems easier on road, not to have left points on the field, then you come back and Steve kicks a 40 yarder and we go home. Is that off?? Its true we might not have been able to stop them, but If believe that we had no chance to stop them going for it makes no sense. Either way I don't think Pete blew it, I just think he made a mistake. Do I want to go back to the Holmy era of clock management?? NO.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:15 pm

You might be surprised what those odds actually are RD. Recommend looking them up prior to making that statement, The odds were actually on Seattle's side in that circumstance going for it, not the other way around.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:46 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:You might be surprised what those odds actually are RD. Recommend looking them up prior to making that statement, The odds were actually on Seattle's side in that circumstance going for it, not the other way around.

Odds of what? Winning the game when you're down by 4 by going for the TD on 4th and goal from the two in the middle of the 4th quarter and with all your timeouts against a team that hasn't given up a rushing TD in their first ten games or simply a stat showing the success rate of scoring a TD from the two on any given down?

I'd like to see you come up with a stat showing the odds that incorporates all those conditions.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Yep. The odds are in FAVOR of succeeding on 4th and goal from the two trailing by more than a FG under 8 minutes in a game, than scoring two FG's in the same situation. There is over a 70% success rate on fourth and goal situations inside the five, and only a 46% success rate for teams needing multiple scores inside eight minutes.

You can complain all you like about it, just the way it is. Just the way things work. If the offense had been scoring at will, I might be inclined to agree with you, but they hadn't, and that trend continued. Seattle, certainly took a shot, or gambled a bit, however, it was indeed a "calculated" risk, and one that the percentages said was the right decision.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:21 pm

You cant have it both ways. If the play and the execution were bad then the decision to go was bad.If it doesn't work its a bad decision. I have no football coaching experience past 5 grader grid kids but I could have come up with a more innovative play than that with a QB as mobile and clutch as Wilson.

Beyond that it just wasn't good football strategy.If there had been 2 minutes left it was the only decision. There were 7 minutes left. Seattle could not necessarily win the game there. A FG makes it a 1 possession game no matter what KC does with its ensuing possession.

Carroll admittedly had some "hormonal moments" in the past with Seattle but they were noticeably absent last season and especially in the SB. Yesterday the clock management and game management wasn't quite good enough.And like RD says if we cant discuss things in hindsight might as well shut this forum down.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:36 pm

Hawktawk wrote:You cant have it both ways. If the play and the execution were bad then the decision to go was bad.If it doesn't work its a bad decision. I have no football coaching experience past 5 grader grid kids but I could have come up with a more innovative play than that with a QB as mobile and clutch as Wilson.

Beyond that it just wasn't good football strategy.If there had been 2 minutes left it was the only decision. There were 7 minutes left. Seattle could not necessarily win the game there. A FG makes it a 1 possession game no matter what KC does with its ensuing possession.

Carroll admittedly had some "hormonal moments" in the past with Seattle but they were noticeably absent last season and especially in the SB. Yesterday the clock management and game management wasn't quite good enough.And like RD says if we cant discuss things in hindsight might as well shut this forum down.

At NO point have I said I agree with the play call, NOR have I at any moment absolved the players for the execution of the play. I am NOT "having it both ways" , I am simply providing the facts of the matter, which is that there is a HIGHER success rate when going for it in that situation, than scoring twice inside eight minutes.

I certainly CAN like the decision to go for it, and not like the play or the execution, because they are NOT the same decision are they? Nope. I agree a MUCH better play could have been called, I also agree that that play was indeed poorly executed, WTH that has to do with the decision to go for it, is beyond me. They are one and the same.

Whether you coached fifth graders, or not, you SHOULD understand success rates, as well as have some rudimentary understanding of game flow, and your teams ability to do certain things, whether they have a higher probability to score on fourth down ( and if not, possibly forcing a turnover, or giving your offense another shot inside the opponents territory, which is exactly what happened) or kicking a FG and doing so a second time.

If not, I can't help you, it is something unique to coaching, and something that unfortunately you are either a "hero" or a "goat" and there is no middle ground there. Seattle had been successful on fourth down conversions coming into that game at a higher rate than almost every other team in the NFL ( if not EVERY team in the NFL, though I'm not sure about that) pretending like the FG is the only call to make there simply isn't close to accurate, no matter how much these Monday morning coaches want to profess that it is.

by **Zorn76** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:16 pm

I agreed with the decision to go for the TD on 4th and goal as well.
What I didn't agree with - like others have already mentioned - was the play call (btw, even though the contact was "inadvertent", I've still seen that kind of play flagged for D PI).

Again, I agree with others that would've liked to have seen some kind of play action to Lynch, giving RW a chance to roll out and do what he does best - find the open man or try to run it himself.

Likewise, I didn't like the play call that had us running on the last 4th down attempt that ended the game. More or less, it seems Bevell would've been better off flipping those play calls in those situations.

Had we kicked the FG, then we would've been down by a point, and perhaps could've won it later with another FG, provided we stop KC on the ensuing drive. Problem is, the Chiefs were returning kicks fairly well to begin with, and also had moved the ball well running in between the 20's.

It's anyone's guess. But I do like the fact that we at least went for the win when we did. I understand opposing opinions, but I liked the decision nonetheless. I think we just needed more imagination when it came to play selection there.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:20 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:

At NO point have I said I agree with the play call, NOR have I at any moment absolved the players for the execution of the play. I am NOT "having it both ways" , I am simply providing the facts of the matter, which is that there is a HIGHER success rate when going for it in that situation, than scoring twice inside eight minutes.

I certainly CAN like the decision to go for it, and not like the play or the execution, because they are NOT the same decision are they? Nope. I agree a MUCH better play could have been called, I also agree that that play was indeed poorly executed, WTH that has to do with the decision to go for it, is beyond me. They are one and the same.

Whether you coached fifth graders, or not, you SHOULD understand success rates, as well as have some rudimentary understanding of game flow, and your teams ability to do certain things, whether they have a higher probability to score on fourth down ( and if not, possibly forcing a turnover, or giving your offense another shot inside the opponents territory, which is exactly what happened) or kicking a FG and doing so a second time.

If not, I can't help you, it is something unique to coaching, and something that unfortunately you are either a "hero" or a "goat" and there is no middle ground there. Seattle had been successful on fourth down conversions coming into that game at a higher rate than almost every other team in the NFL ( if not EVERY team in the NFL, though I'm not sure about that) pretending like the FG is the only call to make there simply isn't close to accurate, no matter how much these Monday morning coaches want to profess that it is.

HC where are you getting those stats regarding 4th down success rate? 70% from the 5 sounds amazingly good. Not questioning it but Id like to have the resource for my own research.

My point regarding the semantics of the call I'm not backing away from. The decision to go should only be based on a solid plan to convert.The two are inseparable.If you don't have a better play call than that kick the FG.Thats the other half of the debate which it sounds like we agree on. Plus at that point your 48% stat needing 2 scores is moot because now its one score no matter what KC does with the next possession and there is plenty of time for Seattle to answer with 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning.

As for understanding the flow of the game Ive been watching NFL ball since the late 60s.I played in HS and I have done radio color commentary as well as appeared on a sports talk show as a guest commentator on numerous occasions. I really dont feel like I need anyone to "help " me with my knowledge of the game. I have a really good feel for the flow of the game and I had a very bad uneasy feeling about going on 4th there. I went through the pros and cons and thought we should kick the FG for all the reasons I mentioned.My feel for the flow of the game made me leery of going regardless of past historical success. It turns out I was right as KC did not score again and Seattle moved to within range of another Hauschka attempt.

Hindsight is 20-20 and I am far from burying this team. Just thought we got out coached yesterday, that's all. Its no shame against Andy Reid.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:24 pm

Good god, thanks Zorn. Pretty much how I felt. The idea that you would run a pass from the two with no Lynch in the backfield is ludicrous. Even IF you want to pass the ball, Lynch could be a diversion, at the least, a roll out with a play/pass option of a fake is a THOUSAND times better than a two step fade. I don't have issue with fades, early down there, but on fourth down? WTF? Would have MUCH preferred a Lynch dive there, as at least you are not risking a pick, or a sack.

Eh, whatever, water under the bridge. I stand by the decision was solid, the play not so much.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:26 pm

[quote="Zorn76"]I agreed with the decision to go for the TD on 4th and goal as well.
What I didn't agree with - like others have already mentioned - was the play call (btw, even though the contact was "inadvertent", I've still seen that kind of play flagged for D PI).

Again, I agree with others that would've liked to have seen some kind of play action to Lynch, giving RW a chance to roll out and do what he does best - find the open man or try to run it himself.

Likewise, I didn't like the play call that had us running on the last 4th down attempt that ended the game. More or less, it seems Bevell would've been better off flipping those play calls in those situations.

Bingo, flip the calls would have been better IMO. If not the read option on the goal line then roll out RW on a run pass option and drag a reciever across or perhaps Lynch off a play fake. But the fade was weak and yes that could have been a flag. Baldwin can jump out of the stadium but the guy knocked him off balance before he could lift off. But we're the chickens we weren't getting that one.

People can agree to disagree with the decision. Whatever, it was a major buzz kill at the time.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:33 pm

Statistics from advanced football analytics, and I said "inside the five yard line" ( actually the two). Whether you agree that two decisions were made or not, that is indeed what happened, no problem for me if you don't see that you can make one decision correctly, and another decision incorrectly, that is your view, and you're welcome to it. Plenty of "correct" decisions in life blown up by the following decision being botched in life, whether you view every decision being connected or not, simply doesn't change that they aren't the same decision.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:40 pm

http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/g ... 53717.html

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/201 ... /post.html

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barn ... fail-most/

Couldn't find the specific article on my phone but here is three for you. The numbers do not match up exactly, and you do need to pay attention to the specifics of the articles as some remove the situation specifically talked about here, but if you are really interested in the information, here is what was easily accessible from a quick Google search/ enjoy.

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:01 pm

Thanx HC I read the articles. Its a little bit of geek math for sure but interesting. Look I'm normally a go for it kind of guy. I'm just saying i really felt queasy about it yesterday. Maybe I had a premonition of the actual execution of the play LOL:) Not

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:11 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Thanx HC I read the articles. Its a little bit of geek math for sure but interesting. Look I'm normally a go for it kind of guy. I'm just saying i really felt queasy about it yesterday. Maybe I had a premonition of the actual execution of the play LOL:) Not

It's all good. I was a bit of a gambler when I played and coached, more often than not it worked, sometimes it didn't, but the odds no matter what guys profess, is in favor of going for it. Maybe you had a instinct , and it was correct obviously. I'm really just relaying information, and stating what I felt at the time. I could have simply hidden, but IMHO it WAS the right decision ( at least part one).

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:15 pm

Well HC its like the Alamo there's no back door. Once they lined up I was a big fan. Then UUUGGGHH.........................It was brutal.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:54 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/garber_greg/1453717.html

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/201 ... /post.html

http://grantland.com/features/bill-barn ... fail-most/

Couldn't find the specific article on my phone but here is three for you. The numbers do not match up exactly, and you do need to pay attention to the specifics of the articles as some remove the situation specifically talked about here, but if you are really interested in the information, here is what was easily accessible from a quick Google search/ enjoy.

You're missing the point entirely. You cannot quantify the odds by which Pete Carroll made his decision. It's not just about math.

by **Futureite** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:11 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Yep. The odds are in FAVOR of succeeding on 4th and goal from the two trailing by more than a FG under 8 minutes in a game, than scoring two FG's in the same situation. There is over a 70% success rate on fourth and goal situations inside the five, and only a 46% success rate for teams needing multiple scores inside eight minutes.

You can complain all you like about it, just the way it is. Just the way things work. If the offense had been scoring at will, I might be inclined to agree with you, but they hadn't, and that trend continued. Seattle, certainly took a shot, or gambled a bit, however, it was indeed a "calculated" risk, and one that the percentages said was the right decision.

I did not see this game and had no idea it played out that way. Either way you are incorrectly citing this statistic.

The % of winning a game when needing two scores most likely assumes a 2 score deficit. Even if it did not, it certainly does not assume that the trailing team is already in scoring position at the 8 min mark, which is the case here. Because a FG from the 2 yd line is a near certainty - a success rate of over 98% - the correct statistic to cite would be the odds of a team winning when trailing by 1 pt on the road with 7 min left in the game and the opposing team possesses the ball.

Even that stat is basically useless though, as it requires analysis of a number of other factors. In short, it sounds like a decision Carroll made based upon the flow of the game or his gut feeling. Cannot fault a coach for that.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:48 pm

No it's not "just about math" and I cited that as well in the first response. However those statistics are indeed based on actual success rates in the NFL on 4th and shorter than two yards, ultimately probabilities play into every single game plan, coaching decision, personnel decisions etc. You can not ignore that math, and probabilities play an enormous role in those types of decisions, and if you are doing so, you are completely off base. The same reason a team doesn't go for a 64 yard field goal in the first quarter even though their kicker has the leg to do so, and has hit it multiple times in practice, is the reason that the decision in that instance was sound, namely probability ( math) flow of the game likelyhood of another opportunity to score a TD to win the game, the issues stopping KC drives, etc. I never said it was the ONLY factor, but is sure the hell was ONE of the factors, and statistically speaking, the success rate was HIGHER than the theory that Seattle would simply all of a sudden move right down the field and garner the second necessary FG, PLUS keep KC from garnering either more points, OR move the ball and eat up time needed to do so.

Dismiss it all you want, I continue to provide the data ( based on actual NFL play) and you continue to profess something based on guesses, or common practices that a lot of coaches ( the crappy one and done coaches as well as the lifetime unsuccessful coaches, and a few successful coaches along the way) while ignoring that MANY coaches most here acknowledge as great coaches often make the same kinds of calls.

Hell RD, you've lauded Fischer on this board, does the "safe" coach run the types of fakes Fischer has over the last decade? Of course not. You are remembering successes, ignoring failures, and claiming he is a "great" coach. Fischer takes a LOT of chances, regularly and I promise you they don't all work out. I simply do not care whether you believe Seattle would have magically won that game if they had kicked the FG instead of going with a higher probability, truth is, that offense had two more shots at it, and did didly ( and that is with getting the ball almost in FG range after the failed fourth down).

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:48 am

As usual, statistics don't tell the whole story.
We were on the road, against a very good Defense who hasn't allowed a rushing TD, with a banged up OL, without our best blocking TE, in the cold, and not having played particularly well in the Red Zone on the road this year.

It was a gut feeling from the coach. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:32 am

NorthHawk wrote:As usual, statistics don't tell the whole story.
We were on the road, against a very good Defense who hasn't allowed a rushing TD, with a banged up OL, without our best blocking TE, in the cold, and not having played particularly well in the Red Zone on the road this year.

It was a gut feeling from the coach. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't.

Well, at least there's one 12 that's looking at this issue objectively. It was a gut feel, one that I disagreed with well before the ball was snapped. I do not feel it was a sound judgment based on the factors by which this game was being played.

Future, the one fact that you are overlooking is that by taking the extra point range FG, you insure yourself of keeping it a one score game even if KC scored a TD on their ensuing possession. There was still a lot of time remaining (I want to say 5 minutes or so) and all timeouts available plus the 2 minute warning.

Roach, you are still missing the point entirely. I could care less what the stats say about 4th down conversions from the 2. It's no different than arguing that you should go for it on 4th and inches from your own 20 when you have a 3 point lead because the conversion percentage is better than 50%. In our game, at that time, in that situation, the smart play would have been to go for the FG, and if that feeble attempt was the best play we could come up with, then it's proof that it was the wrong decision, hindsight or no hindsight.

by **HumanCockroach** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:08 am

No the conservative play, the normal play, and your play would have been to go for a FG, that isn't the "smart" play. You can claim it is the same as going for it on your own twenty on fourth and inches, but the two situations aren't REMOTELY similar, and if you can't figure that out I haven't the foggiest how to explain basic situations to you. First off, there is zero to gain from a play from your twenty, secondly if you miss ( and I've been exceptionally clear that you don't do it 100% of the time) you GIVE points to the other team.

There was a lot more, but you know, it just isn't worth it. You have your bias here as well, and have made it clear for three years that you don't like Carroll in these situations, and as with all your other "guys" you are incapable of seeing anything beyond that, or viewing things from both sides of the coin. If it had worked, this thread wouldn't be here until it did, and you would do the same, just like hawksfan4ever and his deal with Wilson's height, you may have to wait, but you're going to force your displeasure in somehow, someway, and you are simply waiting for the opportunity. Honestly I'm surprised there isn't a thread about an Irvin penalty this weak for a PF. ( course that was on Kam, not Irvin so maybe you realised it before you did so).

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:39 am

Ultimately the "Shack" gives fans a place to celebrate but also to commiserate and sometimes vent. It would be damn boring if it was just primarily a rah rah forum. Or it would be 2013...........But to say everyone is a cookie cutter or should be in terms of opinions isn't correct. In fact on some of these decisions just ask Carroll himself. Directly in the aftermath of our SB victory Carroll was asked what motivation the team had taken from the loss at Atlanta. His answer."I screwed it up,we should have been here a year earlier". PC has had some weird moments with clock management. It isn't hes horrible or even bad. Its just been a factor in a few losses over the past 4.5 seasons so anytime there's a question it will come up.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:45 am

HumanCockroach wrote:No the conservative play, the normal play, and your play would have been to go for a FG, that isn't the "smart" play. You can claim it is the same as going for it on your own twenty on fourth and inches, but the two situations aren't REMOTELY similar, and if you can't figure that out I haven't the foggiest how to explain basic situations to you. First off, there is zero to gain from a play from your twenty, secondly if you miss ( and I've been exceptionally clear that you don't do it 100% of the time) you GIVE points to the other team.

There was a lot more, but you know, it just isn't worth it. You have your bias here as well, and have made it clear for three years that you don't like Carroll in these situations, and as with all your other "guys" you are incapable of seeing anything beyond that, or viewing things from both sides of the coin. If it had worked, this thread wouldn't be here until it did, and you would do the same, just like hawksfan4ever and his deal with Wilson's height, you may have to wait, but you're going to force your displeasure in somehow, someway, and you are simply waiting for the opportunity. Honestly I'm surprised there isn't a thread about an Irvin penalty this weak for a PF. ( course that was on Kam, not Irvin so maybe you realised it before you did so).

You're wrong. You need to concentrate on the content of the post and forget about who's posting it.

Maybe not here, but on other forums that questioned Pete on game management decisions, one that comes to mind being a 4th and 2 (?) from our own 38 decision to punt on the final drive in the SD game where a number of fans thought Pete was crazy for not going for it, I defended his decision. This is the first time this season where I've questioned a game management decision. I am conservative by nature, don't like taking risks, at least not at that point in the game, and IMO that decision did not represent our best chance to win.

The other problem with that play was the play selection, which if that was our best option, made the decision even worse. That play works best with a tall receiver that has a definite height advantage and requires very precise timing for the receiver and the ball to arrive at the same spot at the same time. One stumble out of his break and it throws off everything. It was do-or-die, with no provision for a second option if it wasn't there. If we were forced to go for it, I would have much rather seen some sort of run-pass option that plays to Russell's long suit, which is to create something and improvise.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:53 am

Pete's such a positive person it's easy to see reasons why he went for it.
Perhaps in his mind is if they could score there and hold KC off the board, it could give momentum to the rest of the year, not only this game.
I think that's a worthy consideration.

However, in this game that was a low percentage choice and left the team needing to travel the field for a TD instead of 60 yards or less (assuming our Defense held them and with a kickoff their next punt didn't end up at the one yard line). I think it's a lot easier to score 2 FGs than to march the field for a TD with a banged up OL and TEs along with 2 rookie WRs.

For me, the paradox is Pete as a Defensive coach has some gambler in him. I'm used to seeing Defensive coaches being more conservative and Offensive coaches being more confident in taking that risk. Maybe my perspective in this is wrong, but it's the feeling I get about coaches.

by **HumanCockroach** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:12 am

It IS the higher percentage choIce and because he went for it he received the ball in KC territory a second time ( even though the original TD would have been better) negating the need to "drive the length of the field" , by going for it you have two reasonable shots at the winning TD, not a gimmee FG and THEN having to "drive the length of the field".

People have been brainwashed into believing that a FG is the higher percentage choice, and it simply put isn't.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:12 am

NorthHawk wrote:Pete's such a positive person it's easy to see reasons why he went for it.
Perhaps in his mind is if they could score there and hold KC off the board, it could give momentum to the rest of the year, not only this game.
I think that's a worthy consideration.

However, in this game that was a low percentage choice and left the team needing to travel the field for a TD instead of 60 yards or less (assuming our Defense held them and with a kickoff their next punt didn't end up at the one yard line). I think it's a lot easier to score 2 FGs than to march the field for a TD with a banged up OL and TEs along with 2 rookie WRs.

For me, the paradox is Pete as a Defensive coach has some gambler in him. I'm used to seeing Defensive coaches being more conservative and Offensive coaches being more confident in taking that risk. Maybe my perspective in this is wrong, but it's the feeling I get about coaches.

More like 25 or 30 yards difference between the TD and FG, North Hawk, especially on a cold day when the ball doesn't carry as well, but I get your point. It's a lot easier to gain yardage from your own 20 to your opponent's 30 than it is when all they have to do is keep you out of the end zone.

I agree that his style of coaching tends to lend itself to this subjective risk taking. It's something I've harped on for years. IMO it makes it hard for him to take a fewer steps back from the abyss and make a more logical decision. It's the downside of his coaching style, which overall the advantages have outweighed the disadvantages, but it is nevertheless it is a disadvantage that bites him in the azz from time to time, and this was one of those occasions.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:23 am

HumanCockroach wrote:It IS the higher percentage choIce and because he went for it he received the ball in KC territory a second time ( even though the original TD would have been better) negating the need to "drive the length of the field" , by going for it you have two reasonable shots at the winning TD, not a gimmee FG and THEN having to "drive the length of the field".

People have been brainwashed into believing that a FG is the higher percentage choice, and it simply put isn't.

What your are conveniently ignoring is that by taking the FG, we would have insured ourselves of being within one score of tying the game even if KC had scored a touchdown once they got the ball back. It was the choice that would have accounted for the highest number of possible scenarios given the risk of a near certain XP range FG. There was still a lot of time for those scenarios to develop. Plus the TD would not have won it for us, as was the case when Hairball went for it in his game vs. the Rams. We still would have had to kept KC out of FG range with a lot of time left on the clock.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:49 am

Perhaps in normal situations where the team is healthy, it might be the higher percentage choice.
However, as said above with a wounded OL, 3rd and 4th string TEs, rookie WRs, going against a Defense who all year has stuffed the run in the red zone leaving us one dimensional and considering our WRs are fairly short and at least one of their DBs is 6-2 or more, this was a low percentage gamble. If you want to use stats or numbers, you have to factor in what is going on in the game between the 2 teams, and not overall in the NFL over time.

I stand by my suggestion that it was a low percentage gamble - a gamble that might have had great push to the season if it had worked, but considering the teams at that point a high risk choice in this past game.

by **HumanCockroach** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:08 pm

LOL. OK. Whatever, if you want to believe the odds were better for garnering more yards a second time, to get a second scoring opportunity given what you just described, be my guest. LMAO. You just gave MULTIPLE GOOD reason to GO for the TD from the two, not supported your claim to the contrary.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:36 pm

SMH.
You think it's good odds to go for it against a stout DL with a seriously depleted OL?
LMFAO!

HawkShack.com

Who is online