PLAYOFF GAME #2

[CBBI]

If Teller holds his block for a split second longer, Mayfield has Higgins coming wide open over the middle.

Just a great 1 on 1 victory by Jones.

 

[shoes22]

Reid played to win. Stefanski made a cardinal sin. I know it was 4th and 9 but you have to try there.

I promise this’ll be my last input on this subject because I too am tired of going back and forth...but all I’m gonna say is if Stefanski went for it on 4th and 9 and failed, you’d hear many more people calling for his head and saying what a stupid decision it was for attempting something that had such a low probability of converting.

How many people would be praising him for his aggressiveness? Instead they’d be calling it Freddie Kitchens-esque.

Punting isn’t “not playing to win”... it was trying to put your offense in a better position to execute so your season doesn’t rely on 1 shot to convert 9 yards. They were trying to set themselves up to go into their 2-minute drill, something teams practice all season.

Stopping Henne from getting a couple 1sts should be an easier task than converting a 4th and 9. I know there are a couple people that disagree with that, but if you don’t think they could stop Henme, then you have to assume the Chiefs would score a TD or run out the clock on their next possession anyway.

 

[CBBI]

if you don’t think they could stop Henne, then you have to assume the Chiefs would score a TD or run out the clock on their next possession anyway.

Which is exactly why you go for it.

 

[shoes22]

Which is exactly why you go for it.

Right, I was speaking to you and the other people who thought they couldn’t with that sentence, to drive home the point that it wouldn’t have mattered.

Stefanski, Baker and most other people thought they had a better shot of that than converting the 4th and 9. Almost all teams would. Which is why I’m sure if they were in a similar situation in the future they’d do the same thing again.

 

[CBBI]

Right, I was speaking to you and the other people who thought they couldn’t with that sentence, to drive home the point that it wouldn’t have mattered.

Stefanski, Baker and most other people thought they had a better shot of that than converting the 4th and 9. Almost all teams would. Which is why I’m sure if they were in a similar situation in the future they’d do the same thing again.

The verbal gymnastics you're using to twist your talking points into knots is quite impressive.

You've repeatedly suggested in this thread that the Chiefs FOR SURE would have ended the game had the Browns gone for it and not converted on 4th and 9.

And if that is the case, if that's how you actually feel, then by your own logic there's absolutely no circumstances where the Browns should punt the ball away. If the Chiefs are going to win by getting the ball back, then you can't give them the ball back!

This is common sense. If you think the Chiefs were going to end the game getting the ball back on the Browns 32, then they were going to end the game getting the ball back on their own 32 too.

Possession of the football is the only thing that mattered here.

 

[shoes22]

The verbal gymnastics you're using to twist your talking points into knots is quite impressive.

You've repeatedly suggested in this thread that the Chiefs FOR SURE would have ended the game had the Browns gone for it and not converted on 4th and 9.

And if that is the case, if that's how you actually feel, then by your own logic there's absolutely no circumstances where the Browns should punt the ball away. If the Chiefs are going to win by getting the ball back, then you can't give them the ball back!

This is common sense. If you think the Chiefs were going to end the game getting the ball back on the Browns 32, then they were going to end the game getting the ball back on their own 32 too.

Possession of the football is the only thing that mattered here.

You aren’t understanding my point. Obviously I thought they had a better chance stopping the Chiefs, otherwise I wouldn’t have argued for punting in the first place.

Every time I said that the Chiefs would end the game with a TD, I was directly addressing you and others who did believe the Chiefs couldn’t be stopped. Not myself. I was saying by that logic, the outcome would have been the same.

No team should expect their offense to not regain possession with 4:19 on the clock. It is fairly surprising that they didn’t.

Like I said before, possession is not the only thing that matters, because by your logic they should never punt ever, including situations like 4th and 25.

 

[CBBI]

You aren’t understanding my point. Obviously I thought they had a better chance stopping the Chiefs, otherwise I wouldn’t have argued for punting in the first place.

Every time I said that the Chiefs would end the game with a TD, I was directly addressing you and others who did believe the Chiefs couldn’t be stopped. Not myself. I was saying the outcome would have been the same.

No team should expect their offense to not regain possession with 4:19 on the clock. It is fairly surprising that they didn’t.

Like I said before, possession is not the only thing that matters, because by your logic they should never punt ever, including situations like 4th and 25.

Well let's look at some evidence from the game...

The Chiefs had the ball eight times. Five times with Mahomes, three times with Henne. They converted at least 2 first downs on 7 of the 8 possessions and the only possession they didn't, they started with the ball on the Browns 19 and physically could not gain 2 first downs.

So all 7 possessions, including the previous two with Henne under center, where the Chiefs could pick up 2 first downs, they did.

The Browns in the game had already converted a 3rd and 10, a 2nd and 13, a 2nd and 20 and a 2nd and 10 with completed passes as well as several more 3rd and 4th and short yardage plays.

I completely agree that 4th and 9 is a low probability play. It has about 28-33% chance of success depending on what metrics you look at.

But my question to you is this.

If the Browns go for it 4th and 9 and DON'T CONVERT, what exactly changes for the defense? The are still the exact same position of needing to not give up 2 first downs, just on a different spot on the field.

If a KC field goal would have made it a 2 possession game, or if the Chiefs had taken over on the Browns 5 yard line where a game-sealing touchdown was much more likely, I could actually buy either of those arguments.

But ultimately the idea of the Browns defense giving up a touchdown is irrelevant because it would have needed more yardage than the Chiefs ended up picking up to ice the game anyway. They didn't need points to ice the game, just first downs.

 

[shoes22]

Okay, now we're getting into some new ground instead of retreading the same arguments. I appreciate you making these points.

Well let's look at some evidence from the game...

The Chiefs had the ball eight times. Five times with Mahomes, three times with Henne. They converted at least 2 first downs on 7 of the 8 possessions and the only possession they didn't, they started with the ball on the Browns 19 and physically could not gain 2 first downs.

So all 7 possessions, including the previous two with Henne under center, where the Chiefs could pick up 2 first downs, they did.

So the problem with looking at the game like this, is it assumes that the defense will be schemed the same way at the end of the game and with a different QB the same way it was at the beginning of the game. If the defense weren't capable of making any adjustments based on what they saw on the previous drives, then this would be perfectly valid.

But what we saw on the last defensive stand, is that on the second set of downs, we did almost stop them! We got them to 3rd and 14 at the 2 minute warning, and were set up to get a fresh offensive possession with about a minute and a half left. That alone should show that punting was an effective option. We made defensive adjustments, but we didn't account for Henne scrambling for 13.5 yards, and that's what effectively ended the game.

The Browns in the game had already converted a 3rd and 10, a 2nd and 13, a 2nd and 20 and a 2nd and 10 with completed passes as well as several more 3rd and 4th and short yardage plays.

While this is true, that last offensive drive before we punted was a disaster. We burned our second timeout with 1st and 10 at the 31 because of some kind of miscommunication, followed by a Chubb run for -1 yards, an incomplete Mayfield pass, and a Hunt pass catch for 2 yards into traffic. Baker said after the game that the Chiefs threw some good coverages at them and they were unable to get anything going, certainly not anything resembling a big play. Given the way the drive was going, trying to convert a 4th and 9 was setting the team up for failure. The difference between trying to convert a 4th and 9 and a 2nd or 3rd down with big yardage is the way the defense plays you, because they don't have to worry about short/mid-range passes or runs.

I completely agree that 4th and 9 is a low probability play. It has about 28-33% chance of success depending on what metrics you look at.

But my question to you is this.

If the Browns go for it 4th and 9 and DON'T CONVERT, what exactly changes for the defense? The are still the exact same position of needing to not give up 2 first downs, just on a different spot on the field.

Nothing changes for the defense. No argument from me there. The decision for me came down to what would put our offense in a better position, and I still believe that punting in that situation would put our offense in a better position to win the game, even though it ended up not working out this particular time.

If a KC field goal would have made it a 2 possession game, or if the Chiefs had taken over on the Browns 5 yard line where a game-sealing touchdown was much more likely, I could actually buy either of those arguments.

But ultimately the idea of the Browns defense giving up a touchdown is irrelevant because it would have needed more yardage than the Chiefs ended up picking up to ice the game anyway. They didn't need points to ice the game, just first downs.

Yeah, a TD wasn't a given, that was slight hyperbole on my part. But had 4th and 9 not converted, the Chiefs would be playing to extend their drive as long as possible to not give us a chance to get the ball back. So if they had a chance to extend the drive on a 4th down, they would do that instead of kicking a FG, because the consequence of a failed conversion is so low compared to the reward of ending the game with the final possession. Whether that would have resulted in a TD or not is irrelevant.

In that same situation with the punt, the Chiefs attempting a 4th down conversion and failing means the Browns get the ball back with much better field position, and if they decide to punt, it saves your defense from having to make an additional play. All in all it was a better gamble, but it didn't work out.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

I’m not disagreeing with that. It was impressive and it was gutsy but if it doesn’t work because Henne throws a bad pass, or Hill falls down on the route, or any number of reasons, Reid is getting killed this morning. But because it worked he looks like a genius. Results based analysis.

Then those people "killing" him this morning would be idiots.

 

[CBBI]

Nothing changes for the defense. No argument from me there. The decision for me came down to what would put our offense in a better position, and I still believe that punting in that situation would put our offense in a better position to win the game, even though it ended up not working out this particular time.

Yeah, a TD wasn't a given, that was slight hyperbole on my part. But had 4th and 9 not converted, the Chiefs would be playing to extend their drive as long as possible to not give us a chance to get the ball back. So if they had a chance to extend the drive on a 4th down, they would do that instead of kicking a FG, because the consequence of a failed conversion is so low compared to the reward of ending the game with the final possession. Whether that would have resulted in a TD or not is irrelevant.

In that same situation with the punt, the Chiefs attempting a 4th down conversion and failing means the Browns get the ball back with much better field position. All in all it was a better gamble, but it didn't work out.

Ok so this is an interesting take and I want to get a little more clarity from you on it if you'll oblige me.

If I'm reading this correctly, your opinion is that the Chiefs were unlikely to punt the ball back to the Browns OR attempt a FG to go up 8 if they were faced with any 4th and manageable? Which is what? Less than 5? And the Browns ability to stop the Chiefs on a 4th down play much further down the field is your primary justification for the punt?

Here are the three scenarios for the Browns while they had the ball.

1. Browns go for it on 4th and 9 and convert.
2. Browns go for it on 4th and 9 and do not convert.
3. Browns punt.

Let's just assume if the Chiefs get the ball back, they are not going to turn it over via fumble or interception and the only way the Browns will get it back is via punt or turnover on downs.

Scenario 1 is self explanatory.

The Browns would have the ball 1st and 10 from their own 40 with roughly 4:00 to go.

Scenario 2 has the following realistic outcomes (all clock times and yardages are approximate)

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and run the clock out with 2 first downs or a touchdown. Browns never get possession back or get it back down 2 scores effectively ending the game.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32, get 0 first downs and then kick a 45-yard FG to go up 8 with 3:00 to go. Browns get possession back down 8 on their own 25 after a kickoff touchback.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 1 first down and then kick a 35-yard FG to go up 8 with 1:10 to go. Browns get possession back down 8 on their own 25 after a kickoff touchback.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 0 first downs and then miss a 45-yard FG. Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 35 with 3:00 to go

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 1 first down and then miss a 35 yard FG. Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 25 with 1:10 to go.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and fail to convert a 4th down after 0 first downs, Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 25 with 3:00 to go.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and fail to convert a 4th down after 1 first down, Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 15 with 1:10 to go

Scenario 3 takes a KC FGA off the table. They took over on their own 28 with 4:09 to go (all clock times and yardages are approximate)

-Chiefs convert two first downs and end the game. Browns never get possession back.

-Chiefs do not convert a first down and punt the ball back to the Browns from their own 35 with 2:50 to go. Browns get possession back down 5 from their own 20.

-Chiefs convert 1 first down, and then punt on their second set of downs from their own 45 with 1:25 to go. Browns get possession back down 5 with 1:10 to go from their own 10.

-Chiefs do not convert a first down and fail to convert a 4th down from their own 35. I firmly believe they would NOT have attempted this since a conversation would not have ended the game and risk of a failed conversion was too great, but for arguments sake we'll put it as an outcome. Browns get possession back down 5 from the KC 35 with 3:00 to go.

-Chiefs convert 1 first down and fail to convert a 4th down from their own 45. As aggressive as Reid is, I do believe he would have gone for it on 4th and 4+. Browns get possession back down 5 from KC 45 with 1:20 to go.

 

[Randolphkeys]

If Teller holds his block for a split second longer, Mayfield has Higgins coming wide open over the middle.

Just a great 1 on 1 victory by Jones.

Again, mentioned this before but if Mayfield chooses to follow Tretter stepping up, Jones flies by. At that point Mayfield makes linebackers commit to tackling him and leaving their assignment.

He probably focused #100 on hitting Higgins, and knew choice #2 was always supposed to be Hunt.

It's a small detail and obviously an accurate pass to Hunt makes more yards, but I still question why the focus isn't on execution.

Death by a million papercuts, but the players seem intent on returning and finishing the job. That's a good sign in free agency.

 

[CBBI]

Again, mentioned this before but if Mayfield chooses to follow Tretter stepping up, Jones flies by. At that point Mayfield makes linebackers commit to tackling him and leaving their assignment.

He probably focused #100 on hitting Higgins, and knew choice #2 was always supposed to be Hunt.

It's a small detail and obviously an accurate pass to Hunt makes more yards, but I still question why the focus isn't on execution.

Death by a million papercuts, but the players seem intent on returning and finishing the job. That's a good sign in free agency.

Pinning this one on Baker's lack of execution is a tough hang.

It's 3rd and 11. Mayfield knows he needs to let these routes develop a fraction longer than usual to get them past the sticks.

I firmly believe Baker knows presnap that Higgins is going to come open on the dig. He gets the snap and intentionally looks left the entire way to move Mathieu (between the hashmarks at the 40 yard line) out of the middle of the field, which works perfectly.



When it's 3rd and 11 and you know you're half a second away from having your WR break wide open into the middle for a first down, as a QB you just have to just put the faith in your pro bowl caliber RG to hold up in protection long enough to get that throw off.

Unfortunately, Teller just gets beat too quickly and Mayfield, because he's looking left to move Mathieu, doesn't realize Jones is bearing down on him until he's already at to the top of his drop and looking back to his right.



Scrambling/stepping up in the pocket is out of the question at this point. IMO the only way Mayfield would have been able to escape Jones would have been to start moving up and to his left before he ever got to the top of his drop and that's just a tough ask given what Baker was trying to do with eye manipulation.

The dump off to Hunt is the last resort to avoid a sack. Throw is high, but Mayfield takes a big hit right after the throw too so I'm not killing the guy for a high throw under duress that was still completed.

It's just tough. You just really need Teller to hold his block a tiny bit longer.

 

[shoes22]

Okay, here's my take on each of the 3 scenarios.

Scenario 1 is self explanatory.

The Browns would have the ball 1st and 10 from their own 40 with roughly 4:00 to go.

So clearly this is the preferred outcome, but in my opinion the low probability of conversion and consequence of not converting is too great, when looking at the other scenarios.

Scenario 2 has the following realistic outcomes (all clock times and yardages are approximate)

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32, get 0 first downs and then kick a 45-yard FG to go up 8 with 3:00 to go. Browns get possession back down 8 on their own 25 after a kickoff touchback.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 0 first downs and then miss a 45-yard FG. Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 35 with 3:00 to go

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and fail to convert a 4th down after 0 first downs, Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 25 with 3:00 to go.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 1 first down and then kick a 35-yard FG to go up 8 with 1:10 to go. Browns get possession back down 8 on their own 25 after a kickoff touchback.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and get 1 first down and then miss a 35 yard FG. Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 25 with 1:10 to go.

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and fail to convert a 4th down after 1 first down, Browns get possession back down 5 on their own 15 with 1:10 to go

-Chiefs take over at the CLE 32 and run the clock out with 2 first downs or a touchdown. Browns never get possession back or get it back down 2 scores effectively ending the game.

I re-ordered your outcomes for clarity, so the 0 first downs and 1 first down outcomes are grouped together.

If the Chiefs have not secured the first 1st down, depending on the time remaining in the game and remaining yardage, they could attempt a FG if they believed they couldn't convert on 4th down. Kicking a FG could be smart there depending on the exact circumstances and how confident they were in their kicker, (who had missed a couple already).

If the Chiefs did secure an additional 1st down, they would be at the CLE 22 (at least) and look at ending the game. From that field position I believe they would go for it no matter what, completely taking the FG off the table. Because with a little over a minute remaining, the reward of 4th down conversion far outweighs the risk of failing, because with that clock and field position, the higher difficulty task for the Browns offense would be scoring a touchdown at all, not getting the 2PT conversion.

Scenario 3 takes a KC FGA off the table. They took over on their own 28 with 4:09 to go (all clock times and yardages are approximate)

-Chiefs do not convert a first down and punt the ball back to the Browns from their own 35 with 2:50 to go. Browns get possession back down 5 from their own 20.

-Chiefs do not convert a first down and fail to convert a 4th down from their own 35. I firmly believe they would NOT have attempted this since a conversation would not have ended the game and risk of a failed conversion was too great, but for arguments sake we'll put it as an outcome. Browns get possession back down 5 from the KC 35 with 3:00 to go.

-Chiefs convert 1 first down, and then punt on their second set of downs from their own 45 with 1:25 to go. Browns get possession back down 5 with 1:10 to go from their own 10.

-Chiefs convert 1 first down and fail to convert a 4th down from their own 45. As aggressive as Reid is, I do believe he would have gone for it on 4th and 4+. Browns get possession back down 5 from KC 45 with 1:20 to go.

-Chiefs convert two first downs and end the game. Browns never get possession back.

I agree with you here that if the Chiefs don't convert a 1st down, they would punt. So we can take the go for it scenario off the table there.

If they do convert a 1st down, they would most likely be fine either way by punting or going for it, and the time and yards remaining would be the biggest factors here in what they decide.

So having gone through these, we can basically map each outcome 1:1 for each scenario and evaluate that way in the decision to punt or not punt. I'll put the non-punting outcome on the left side and punting outcome on the right. Because of the variance in punting distance and kick returns, any scenario that's within 5 yards of the one being compared we'll call even. Any outcome that's significantly better when compared head-to-head i'll color green.

Chiefs not securing a 1st down and making a FG VS. Chiefs not securing a 1st down and punting
Browns would have to score 8 points at their own 25 vs. having to score 7 points at their own 20 with approximately 3:00 remaining.

This one is mostly even, but having to convert the 2pt conversion here should give a slight edge to the punting scenario.

Chiefs not securing a 1st down and failing to convert on 4th down VS. Chiefs not securing a 1st down and punting
Browns would have to score 7 points at their own 25 vs. having to score 7 points at their own 20 with approximately 3:00 remaining.

Mostly even, slight edge non-punting.

Chiefs not securing a 1st down and missing the FG VS. Chiefs not securing a 1st down and punting
Browns would have to score 7 points at their own 35 vs. having to score 7 points at their own 20 with approximately 3:00 remaining.

This one the advantage goes to non-punting. However I strongly believe that Reid would only kick the FG if he believed the probability of making the kick was much higher than the probability of converting a 4th down, making that outcome fall on the less likely scale.

Chiefs convert a 1st down and fail to convert on their second 4th down VS. Chiefs convert a 1st down and punt on their second set of downs
Browns would have to score 7 points at their own 15 vs. having to score 7 points at their own 10 with approximately 1:15 remaining

Mostly even, slight edge non-punting.

Chiefs convert a 1st down and fail to convert on their second 4th down VS. Chiefs convert a 1st down and fail to convert on their second 4th down
Browns would have to score 7 points at their own 15 vs. having to score 7 points at KC 45 with approximately 1:15 remaining

This one the advantage goes to the punting scenario.

Chiefs convert two 1st downs VS. Chiefs convert two 1st downs
Browns lose

So of all the realistic outcomes, we can see that 4 end up even, 1 outcome advantage non-punting, and 1 outcome advantage in punting. But for the full totality of evaluation, we should also include outcomes that are only available in one particular scenario:

Browns convert 4th and 9 VS. N/A
Drive continues vs. Drive ends

Chiefs score touchdown VS. N/A
Browns lose vs. N/A

So here we have one more advantage that favors non-punting, and one more that advantage that favors punting. But as we previously discussed, the odds of 4th and 9 conversion are low, and the Chiefs scoring a TD possibility should be taken seriously...because that is an outcome that can happen with non-punting regardless of 0 or 1 prior first down conversions, so it's always a threat.

I think that additional outcome of an instant loss is reason enough to punt, but even if you think that it's close enough to be even, and if the outcomes are even you should err on the side of going for it, the decision then should be based on how much you believe in your defense.

If you believe your defense won't surrender any first downs, you should go for it.
If you believe your defense will surrender one first down but not two, you should punt.
If you believe your defense will surrender two first downs, you're going to lose either way.

Punting is the better move if you are not confident in having a stalwart defense, because you have more wiggle-room. Going for it is better the more confident you are in your defense, and especially if the other team's kicker isn't good.

The other reason to go for it is if you believe your defense is so bad that it can't stop the other team from getting two first downs or a touchdown. This option is basically a hail mary because you're banking your entire season on the success of the 4th and 9 play. I don't believe we were in a hail mary situation with 4:19 left in the game, so I was fine with punting.

 

[Wulfgar1224]

I will start off by stating that it was a fun season and I enjoyed it. There is reason to believe with smart decisions on the defense that the future is pretty bright. We will see how that goes.

That said, I think the Browns blew it on Sunday. Mahomes left the game with around 7 mins to go in the 3rd quarter. They were given a gift and should’ve found a way to win that game. It bothered me that when they took over with about 8 mins left and had such a terrible possession. To me, that is a sign of a team that just isn’t ready to join the elite. I hate to see a team fail to take advantage of such an opportunity. You just aren’t guaranteed next year even if we all feel they will be back in the playoffs next season. Fun season but a very lousy way for it to end.

 

[CBBI]

I will start off by stating that it was a fun season and I enjoyed it. There is reason to believe with smart decisions on the defense that the future is pretty bright. We will see how that goes.

That said, I think the Browns blew it on Sunday. Mahomes left the game with around 7 mins to go in the 3rd quarter. They were given a gift and should’ve found a way to win that game. It bothered me that when they took over with about 8 mins left and had such a terrible possession. To me, that is a sign of a team that just isn’t ready to join the elite. I hate to see a team fail to take advantage of such an opportunity. You just aren’t guaranteed next year even if we all feel they will be back in the playoffs next season. Fun season but a very lousy way for it to end.

The Browns only had the ball two times after Mahomes got hurt. The first time they had it, they drove 75 yards and scored a touchdown.

The second time they got one first down, but ended up punting and never got the ball back. Was the lack of pace frustrating? Of course. But sometimes you just have to tip your cap to great defensive players making great defensive plays too.

Chris Jones beat Jack Conklin and Wyatt Teller 1 on 1 twice in three plays. Frank Clark made a great heady play as well.