NFL (2024 Season)

[thspfc]

So I'd like to see the Chiefs offense put up 30+ in regulation against someone other than the Raiders before I'm ready to crown them Super Bowl favorites.

Today I learned that completely discarding two full games - 1/7th of the season at this point for a team - is acceptable.

The Raiders games count in the standings, but what the Raiders do defensively doesn't work against the Chiefs and all 31 other teams know it, so those games are not predictive. My point is that outside of the Raiders games, we haven't seen the Chiefs offense and defense both playing their best for a full game this season. They have the talent to play even better down the stretch, but I don't think they're Super Bowl favorites right now.

Them vs Tampa is a toss-up. Other than Tampa, who do you think is more likely to win it all?

[1995hoo]

The Redskins placed QB Taylor Heinicke on the covid list this morning after he tested positive. His backup, Kyle Allen, was already on the list as of Wednesday. They've signed QB Garrett Gilbert (whoever he is) off New England's practice squad, and there are reports he may actually start the game Sunday. The other QBs they have are Jordan Ta'amu, who played for St. Louis in the XFL last year, and Kyle Shurmur, who has been on the practice squad since September 13. Overall, 21 players are on the covid list, almost all of them vaccinated and several of them with no symptoms.

[webny99]

So I'd like to see the Chiefs offense put up 30+ in regulation against someone other than the Raiders before I'm ready to crown them Super Bowl favorites.

Today I learned that completely discarding two full games - 1/7th of the season at this point for a team - is acceptable.

The Raiders games count in the standings, but what the Raiders do defensively doesn't work against the Chiefs and all 31 other teams know it, so those games are not predictive. My point is that outside of the Raiders games, we haven't seen the Chiefs offense and defense both playing their best for a full game this season. They have the talent to play even better down the stretch, but I don't think they're Super Bowl favorites right now.

Them vs Tampa is a toss-up. Other than Tampa, who do you think is more likely to win it all?

I'd probably have the Packers at #2 mostly because they have a better shot at a first round bye and if they're at home, they're heavy favorites over everyone except the Bucs. I'd have the Chiefs at #3 and the Patriots at #4, but the AFC feels so wide open that I don't view those two as heavy favorites over anyone else. Titans also have a decent shot at a first round bye, so they're probably #5, and then Cardinals, Rams, Cowboys, Bills, Chargers in that order.

Put it this way: if the Chiefs have to play on Wild Card weekend, I wouldn't view them as a heavy favorite over anyone currently in playoff position.

[NWI_Irish96]

The Bucs and Packers will both make the NFC Championship game because Brady and Rodgers are the darlings of the league and the officials do everything they can for them. Once they both make it there, it should be a fair fight.

[JayhawkCO]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

Why do you say that last statement?  It's not like they're fake punting where doing it more will have other teams practicing against it more.  3rd and 1 is effectively the same play call as 4th and 1.  The odds of success are trackable because there are so many data points.  There is no real reason why it would become any less successful over time just because the down is different.

Yes, there is. Many teams use the opportunity of a 3rd and 1 to take a deep shot through the air, since the defense is expecting a run or shallow underneath pass. Defenses have adjusted to this, and now get burned less frequently over the top on 3rd and short. Nobody is going to be throwing it deep on 4th and 1 because of the low likelihood of a completion. One less thing for the defense to account for.

I disagree.  Like I said above, the reason to go for it is not only limited to the % of success.  It's related to the % of success your opponents will have if you're unsuccessful.  I've seen plenty of teams throw on 4th and 1, because who gives a shit?  If you don't connect on the pass, it's the same thing as getting stuffed on a run.  If they pick it off?  Who gives a shit?  They're probably getting worse field position than they would have had if they intentionally dropped it.  I'd argue there's even MORE of a reason to throw it on 4th and 1 because of the lack of fear of interceptions.

[1995hoo]

Three games were just postponed.

Las Vegas at Cleveland moved from Saturday to Monday (5:00 PM ET so as not to conflict with the regular Monday night game).

Washington at Philadelphia and Seattle at Los Angeles (NFC) moved from Sunday to Tuesday (7:00 PM ET).

[thspfc]

So I'd like to see the Chiefs offense put up 30+ in regulation against someone other than the Raiders before I'm ready to crown them Super Bowl favorites.

Today I learned that completely discarding two full games - 1/7th of the season at this point for a team - is acceptable.

The Raiders games count in the standings, but what the Raiders do defensively doesn't work against the Chiefs and all 31 other teams know it, so those games are not predictive. My point is that outside of the Raiders games, we haven't seen the Chiefs offense and defense both playing their best for a full game this season. They have the talent to play even better down the stretch, but I don't think they're Super Bowl favorites right now.

Them vs Tampa is a toss-up. Other than Tampa, who do you think is more likely to win it all?

I'd probably have the Packers at #2 mostly because they have a better shot at a first round bye and if they're at home, they're heavy favorites over everyone except the Bucs. I'd have the Chiefs at #3 and the Patriots at #4, but the AFC feels so wide open that I don't view those two as heavy favorites over anyone else. Titans also have a decent shot at a first round bye, so they're probably #5, and then Cardinals, Rams, Cowboys, Bills, Chargers in that order.

Put it this way: if the Chiefs have to play on Wild Card weekend, I wouldn't view them as a heavy favorite over anyone currently in playoff position.

The Chiefs are the #1 seed in the AFC today. Packers are tied for #1 with the Bucs and Cardinals. Chiefs have won 7 in a row, while the Packers have lost 2 of their last 5.

We just had the ''home field advantage" discussion after the Cowboys/Saints game. Home field advantage is a myth. It does not exist. What DOES exist is the advantage of the first round bye. But home field does not matter.

[thspfc]

The Bucs and Packers will both make the NFC Championship game because Brady and Rodgers are the darlings of the league and the officials do everything they can for them. Once they both make it there, it should be a fair fight.

🤡

[thspfc]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

You're changing more than one thing though. I didn't say, "if the Chargers kicked the FG to go up 17-13 and then Mahomes didn't throw that interception, they would have won". If all that was changed about the game was that they kicked the field goal to go up 17-13, they would have won.

[JayhawkCO]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

You're changing more than one thing though. I didn't say, "if the Chargers kicked the FG to go up 17-13 and then Mahomes didn't throw that interception, they would have won". If all that was changed about the game was that they kicked the field goal to go up 17-13, they would have won.

How on earth is that not changing more than one thing?  You don't think play calls change when the scores change?  At a bare minimum, the Chiefs' playcalling would be different on the subsequent drive because they're starting with different field position. 

"If all that changed about the game was that they succeeded on going for it on fourth and scored a TD to go up 21-13, they would have..." done something, because lots of things change after that point. 

[thspfc]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

You're changing more than one thing though. I didn't say, "if the Chargers kicked the FG to go up 17-13 and then Mahomes didn't throw that interception, they would have won". If all that was changed about the game was that they kicked the field goal to go up 17-13, they would have won.

How on earth is that not changing more than one thing?  You don't think play calls change when the scores change?  At a bare minimum, the Chiefs' playcalling would be different on the subsequent drive because they're starting with different field position. 

"If all that changed about the game was that they succeeded on going for it on fourth and scored a TD to go up 21-13, they would have..." done something, because lots of things change after that point.

Play calls change when the score changes. That particular play call on the interception, however, would likely not have changed.

You realize that two can play this game, right? You're arguing that the Chargers being up 17-13 rather than 14-13 at that moment could have changed the game in a way that favored the Chiefs in the end; it could also have changed the game in a way that favored the Chargers in the end.

[JayhawkCO]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

You're changing more than one thing though. I didn't say, "if the Chargers kicked the FG to go up 17-13 and then Mahomes didn't throw that interception, they would have won". If all that was changed about the game was that they kicked the field goal to go up 17-13, they would have won.

How on earth is that not changing more than one thing?  You don't think play calls change when the scores change?  At a bare minimum, the Chiefs' playcalling would be different on the subsequent drive because they're starting with different field position. 

"If all that changed about the game was that they succeeded on going for it on fourth and scored a TD to go up 21-13, they would have..." done something, because lots of things change after that point.

Play calls change when the score changes. That particular play call on the interception, however, would likely not have changed.

You realize that two can play this game, right? You're arguing that the Chargers being up 17-13 rather than 14-13 at that moment could have changed the game in a way that favored the Chiefs in the end; it could also have changed the game in a way that favored the Chargers in the end.

You're proving my point for me though.  What I am saying is that if analytics say to go for it, you are averaging all of the possibilities/probabilities based on tons of empirical data.  So it doesn't matter what actually happens when judging whether the decision was sound.

If you're flipping a coin and you tell me if I call it correctly, you'll give me $50, but if I'm wrong, I give you $47, I'm an idiot if I don't play that game as long as you let me.  I might go on a bad streak and lose the first three, six, a hundred, etc.  But eventually I will win.  Hence why casinos are profitable.  You can't be results oriented when it comes to probability, otherwise that's a very exploitable strategy.

Analytics take all the available data - time remaining in the game, skill of the other team, down and distance, yard line, success rate for your average play on 4th and 1, whatever, and then spit out a number for all choices you can make -- going for it, kicking a FG, punting, etc.  Whatever number is highest is the unexploitable strategy and the one that should be followed.

[thspfc]

Would they have won the game if they kicked a field goal even one of those times?

I'll answer that question: the answer is yes. They were clearly struggling to convert on 4th down. What they were doing was not working. Why did they keep doing it?

How can you be so sure?  The rest of the game plays out differently when the score is different.  I'll give you one very clear example.  At 12:24 in the 4th quarter, the Chargers went for it on 4th and 1 and got it when Kelley ran for 7 yards.  A couple of plays later, Kelley fumbled when he tried to Marcus Allen a TD from the 1 from the KC11.  Right after that though, because the Chiefs were pinned back and the Chargers could bring pressure, Mahomes threw the pick where Nwosu made a huge play.  The Chargers ended up scoring a TD on an Ekeler run on the first play after getting the ball back.

Had the Chargers kicked the 28 yard FG instead of going for it in the first place, they would have been winning by 4, not 8.  Scoring less points seems bad.  The REASON that analytics tells you to go for it more often on short yardage deep in your opponents' territory is not so much that it's guaranteed to be good for you; it's also that it's less bad if you don't succeed.  That's the part the talking heads on TV that claim to know even the slightest bit about the topic seem to forget every time.

You're changing more than one thing though. I didn't say, "if the Chargers kicked the FG to go up 17-13 and then Mahomes didn't throw that interception, they would have won". If all that was changed about the game was that they kicked the field goal to go up 17-13, they would have won.

How on earth is that not changing more than one thing?  You don't think play calls change when the scores change?  At a bare minimum, the Chiefs' playcalling would be different on the subsequent drive because they're starting with different field position. 

"If all that changed about the game was that they succeeded on going for it on fourth and scored a TD to go up 21-13, they would have..." done something, because lots of things change after that point.

Play calls change when the score changes. That particular play call on the interception, however, would likely not have changed.

You realize that two can play this game, right? You're arguing that the Chargers being up 17-13 rather than 14-13 at that moment could have changed the game in a way that favored the Chiefs in the end; it could also have changed the game in a way that favored the Chargers in the end.

You're proving my point for me though.  What I am saying is that if analytics say to go for it, you are averaging all of the possibilities/probabilities based on tons of empirical data.  So it doesn't matter what actually happens when judging whether the decision was sound.

If you're flipping a coin and you tell me if I call it correctly, you'll give me $50, but if I'm wrong, I give you $47, I'm an idiot if I don't play that game as long as you let me.  I might go on a bad streak and lose the first three, six, a hundred, etc.  But eventually I will win.  Hence why casinos are profitable.  You can't be results oriented when it comes to probability, otherwise that's a very exploitable strategy.

Analytics take all the available data - time remaining in the game, skill of the other team, down and distance, yard line, success rate for your average play on 4th and 1, whatever, and then spit out a number for all choices you can make -- going for it, kicking a FG, punting, etc.  Whatever number is highest is the unexploitable strategy and the one that should be followed.

The coin flip example is apples to oranges because all coins are the same. All NFL games are not the same.

[JayhawkCO]

No, but math is math.  Doesn't matter if you're counting apples or counting oranges.

[thspfc]

I can see your smirk behind your screen at the "math is math" line.

They had failed to convert on 4th and short inside field goal range twice already. I don't have an issue with the first two 4th down attempts; I do have an issue with the third.

I think you're choosing to ignore my reasoning: in this particular game, going for it on 4th down was not working. When your gameplan isn't working, you make adjustments. That helps you win. Had the Chargers chosen to kick the field goal that third time, they most likely would have won the game.

[webny99]

We just had the ''home field advantage" discussion after the Cowboys/Saints game. Home field advantage is a myth. It does not exist. What DOES exist is the advantage of the first round bye. But home field does not matter.

It means less than it used to in general, but I think Lambeau is the one stadium out of 30 where it definitely still exists.

(edited to fix error)

[Big John]

^^ There are 30 NFL stadiums, NY and LA share stadiums.

[JayhawkCO]

I can see your smirk behind your screen at the "math is math" line.

They had failed to convert on 4th and short inside field goal range twice already. I don't have an issue with the first two 4th down attempts; I do have an issue with the third.

I think you're choosing to ignore my reasoning: in this particular game, going for it on 4th down was not working. When your gameplan isn't working, you make adjustments. That helps you win. Had the Chargers chosen to kick the field goal that third time, they most likely would have won the game.

I'm not ignoring your reasoning.  I fully admit they didn't do very well on 4th down in that game.  I just believe that the mistake made my the coaching staff wasn't the decision to go for it; it was maybe the plays that they called.  As per the quote I posted above, they regressed to the mean in the game, but it doesn't mean that it was fundamentally the wrong decision to go for it.  To win, you cannot be results oriented; if your process is good, you will eventually succeed.

If the first five times you run the ball, you gain no yardage despite you having one of the best RBs in the game (not relating this specifically to this game), you don't stop running the ball just 'cuz it didn't work.  If Steph Curry misses the first five 3's he takes, he doesn't stop shooting them.  If Tiger Woods hit his first four drives into the rough, he doesn't stop using his driver.  There's enough track record for all of those scenarios to understand that is incredibly unlikely for the unwanted result to continue.

[thspfc]

I can see your smirk behind your screen at the "math is math" line.

They had failed to convert on 4th and short inside field goal range twice already. I don't have an issue with the first two 4th down attempts; I do have an issue with the third.

I think you're choosing to ignore my reasoning: in this particular game, going for it on 4th down was not working. When your gameplan isn't working, you make adjustments. That helps you win. Had the Chargers chosen to kick the field goal that third time, they most likely would have won the game.

I'm not ignoring your reasoning.  I fully admit they didn't do very well on 4th down in that game.  I just believe that the mistake made my the coaching staff wasn't the decision to go for it; it was maybe the plays that they called.  As per the quote I posted above, they regressed to the mean in the game, but it doesn't mean that it was fundamentally the wrong decision to go for it.  To win, you cannot be results oriented; if your process is good, you will eventually succeed.

If the first five times you run the ball, you gain no yardage despite you having one of the best RBs in the game (not relating this specifically to this game), you don't stop running the ball just 'cuz it didn't work.  If Steph Curry misses the first five 3's he takes, he doesn't stop shooting them.  If Tiger Woods hit his first four drives into the rough, he doesn't stop using his driver.  There's enough track record for all of those scenarios to understand that is incredibly unlikely for the unwanted result to continue.

Gaining 0 yards on a run is not going to give the ball to the other team unless it's 4th down. Steph missing a 3 gives the ball to the other team - in a game where each team has a million possessions. A golfer choosing to stop hitting with a driver would be like Steph choosing to shoot underhanded, so that doesn't make any sense.

[webny99]

This debate has been interesting and I'm enjoying it because I'm not firmly on one side or the other.

I'm with thespfc that they should have kicked the field goal the third time instead of going for it. The reasons being mostly situational: they needed 2 yards, not 1, they had the lead at the time, and they weren't even to the red zone so a TD was far from a sure thing even if they converted.

I'm with jayhawkco that the play calls were a bigger issue than the decision to go for it. The decision was technically sound, but only if they call a high-probability run play or QB sneak. And that matters a ton, because going for it and then treating it just like 3rd and short is basically fooling yourself into thinking you have a higher conversion probability than you really do, which negates the advantage of going for it.

I think both things can be true, but ultimately the coaching staff is still accountable for what happened and I think they would be extremely misguided to just blame it on analytics and "the numbers" when that ignores the most important factor - they called three 4th down plays that didn't work. That's a play calling problem, not an analytics problem.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think very few coaches and teams have remotely figured out how to balance analytics with human elements (this is especially egregious in baseball). The Chargers actually got roasted a bit by stat geeks earlier this season when they elected to kick a field goal down 27-17 with 4th and 1 or 2 inside the Vikings 10 and about 6 minutes left in the game. It was a situation where the Chargers could not afford to come away with nothing. They lost the game 27-20 regardless.

[JayhawkCO]

Gaining 0 yards on a run is not going to give the ball to the other team unless it's 4th down. Steph missing a 3 give the ball to the other team - in a game where each team has a million possessions.

But missing a 3 often produces longer rebounds, giving the offensive team a higher likelihood of keeping possession since no one blocks out backward when it's a 3 vs. a 2.  That's why basketball analytics rates a 3-pointer as "worth" more than one point greater than a 2-pointer. 

[thspfc]

What is happening in Detroit?

[ilpt4u]

What is happening in Detroit?

Lions upset the Cardinals last year, too. Kicked me out of a survivor pool

[NWI_Irish96]

What is happening in Detroit?

They're ruining their draft pick and helping the Packers get the #1 seed. Detroit fans must be thrilled.