Except the ball isn't always going to be facing straight forward. It's held at a random angle in someone's hand. Also, I'm not GPS is accurate to fractions of inches at this point in time anyway.
The Bills lost because they have an idiot for an OC... The guy is calling plays like he's in High School... T_Man
That game was there for the taking and the Bills didn’t take advantage of it. The Bills kept trying to QB sneak it to the left every time and KC was ready for it every time - hows about you give it to on a roll out or do something more creative since they’ve been stopping it almost every time. Also - this game showed how good the Texans D-line and secondary was. They better regroup and go full tilt next year.
The only hand he had on the ball was on top of the ball. He didn't have control when it hit the ground, which is the actual rule. The ground allowed for that ball to be caught.
It wasn't even a borderline play, there's no universe where it's a catch unless it's KC. I honestly just fast forward through replay announcements because 100% of the time the "review" will be whatever is better for KC. No part of me thought there was a chance in hell that nonsense wouldn't be called a catch, or that allen 1st down wouldn't be ruled short.
No I don’t agree. I was criticizing the decision when they made it. Of course you can say “well duh if the Bills got every two point conversion they tried it’s better than kicking the extra point” I mean yeah that’s the math. this isn’t basketball where you can just keeping chucking 20-30-40 threes a game and let the percentages play out. In even really high scoring games you’re usually only gonna get 5-6 extra points or 2p conversions max, so that 65% or whatever you wanna call it isn’t going to hold up for one game, sure you might have a great game and convert 4 or 5 conversions and you win bc of it, but it’s kind of an all or nothing result most of the time, and just my sense of all these years watching football is that more teams screw themselves by trying to go for 2 when it’s not needed than they help themselves by converting it. I don’t have an actual stat to back that up but that’s my general feel for it. I do get the base argument of what you’re saying. I’m for teams being hyper aggressive on 4th down. I think way to many moron coaches punt down multiple scores with 10-11 mins left bc they’re on their own 15 yard line, almost as if to try and not make the score worse instead of trying to win the game. So maybe I’m a hypocrite, bc I just feel very differently about 2 point conversions. my general rules: 1. Don’t chase 2p conversions in the first half. If you’re trailing, just get the points 2. If you want to go for two, better to do it while leading but not at the expense of passing up a guaranteed 2 score lead (try to go up 8-0 and make the other team chase, etc). 3. Im on board with the trailing by 2 scores in the second half, go for 2 on the first touchdown philosophy. 4. Any time it’s multiple scores trailing (16 points, 23 or 24 points) yeah you gotta do it. what the eagles and bills did was very foolish. For the eagles, what the hell are you doing, it’s an 9 point game if you kick it. Obviously, didn’t matter. For bills, why the **** do you care if it’s an 3 point game vs a 4 point game at halftime. You aren’t winning that game just kicking a field goal. Just didn’t make sense to me, it was desperate. Obviously if they got it then they would have had more points, but I thought the decision making in both scenarios was flawed.
At age 28, the data reflects that running backs fall off a cliff. It's known. February 9th is gonna be a dark day.
I'd love to see a poll of how many people are rooting for the Eagles to beat the Chiefs. My guess is that the Chiefs might be the most rooted against team in Superbowl history this year with all the ref favoritism they've had, and the constant Taylor in the stands tv coverage.
I agree in the sense that these teams are doing it selectively, which is dumb. It works best when you go for it every time, and especially when you go for it early. In the 1st quarter, for example, you just want points. 8 is better than 7, and your EV is better going for 2 if you have a high success rate. Most games, it's not going to matter, but in the big picture, you should ultimately win more than you lose. But when doing it selectively as the teams did this weekend, you lose that advantage of doing it over and over an it averaging out to net positive points. And the problem is we remember the games they lose as a result of "bold/crazy" decisions as opposed to the ones they win. In the Eagles case, it was after a penalty, so it was a one yard push play. With the Hurts sneak, they have like a 95% success rate on it, so I thi kit made a lot of sense. In the Bills' case, I agree they did it for the wrong reasons trying to make it a 3 pt game instead 4 that early. But in theory, you also know you need lots of points to beat the Chiefs, so if you have a 65% chance to gain an extra one there, it's s smart play - being down 4 vs 5 at halftime isn't a huge difference either. But the fact that they didn't do it in the earlier TDs tells us they weren't thinking that way and were instead selectively chasing points.
Chiefs get the highest ratings in the NFL. This past game was the most watched non-Superbowl game in NFL history. Don't think it's because people love the Bills and its not because everyone hates the Chiefs.
I think it's because so many people were rooting for the Chiefs to lose. It wouldn't have mattered who they played. I'm guessing the big majority of the NFL fans don't want to see them win again.
I'm also not a fan of either. I'm only pulling for the Eagles because I'm so sick and tired of all the hooplah, favoritism, and drama surrounding the Chiefs, Taylor Swift and Kelsey, and Mahomes and his wife. I also get sick of that Chiefs chant from the stands. Honestly though, I have rarely cared who wins the Superbowl. I lose all interest when we stop playing. The excitement is gone for me. I usually just pull for the underdog, unless that underdog is the Cowboys or a division rival.
On the first point, I’d agree generally that over the course of a season it might be worth it, but no I don’t think you can approach a playoff game that way. And yes you can and should sometimes operate differently in a regular season game than you would in a one and done playoff game. In baseball, you routinely see pitchers left out there giving up 4-5-6-7 runs in game 110. But in a game 7, those ****ers are getting pulled inning two. Maybe that’s a non-sequitur, but the point stands that you don’t have to be as aggressive and ridiculous with every aspect of decision making when it comes to a playoff game, and no that doesn’t mean you’re playing scared. Back to the point, even if you convert 70% of 2 point conversions, it’s not spread equally, meaning you could have some games where you unnecessarily convert 4 or 5 and others where you flame out, so it’s not a linear path to more wins. Even a 70% conversion rate could still end up not benefitting the W/L overall based on how it’s divided up between games. I feel like that should be obvious, but seems like you’re overlooking that. With the Eagles, didn’t matter if it was a 99.9% success rate. It was stupid. The upside of being up 10 instead of 9 compared to the downside of being up 8 instead of 9 is gigantic. Obviously there was a ton of game left, so ultimately it didn’t matter, but do you think they would have made that same foolish decision if there was 1 minute 30 seconds left in the game? Hell no, bc it was greedy and didn’t really benefit them that much to be up 10 instead of 9. The major issue I have with your assessment is that it feels like you are just claiming the math works bc 2 points 65% of the time is worth more than 1 point 95% of the time. Sure, but the context matters. The situation matters. The risk assessment of the upside vs the downside matters. In many of these cases, the downside of much worse than the benefit of converting. It’s not equivocal. All that being said, this is one of the beautiful aspects of football. I appreciate the different perspectives and differences of opinion on how things should be operated from a game management and scheme approach.
Good news fellas, Goodell says its ridiculous to say the Chiefs get favorable calls on a routine basis from the refs!!! We can stop the crazy theories now!! https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43682538/roger-goodell-shuts-notion-nfl-officials-partial-chiefs
Yeah ... no. The Chiefs are the most popular team in the NFL right now, whether due to winning or Mahomes or Taylor Swift or whatever else. It's just like the old Cowboys - yeah, fans of other teams hated them. But they were still America's team and people without a particular rooting interest loved them. No different the Warriors or Bulls or Lakers or Yankees or Dodgers during their peak years. Great teams will always be super-popular and generate the highest ratings. Even more so if they are "fun" to watch in terms of how they play.
Of course risk and context matter. And no they wouldn't do the same thing if there was 90 seconds in the game - not because its a foolish decision in general, but because there are other factors in play at that point. But early in the game, every point has value, and if you have a 99.9% chance of being up 10 instead of 9, every coach in the NFL would take it. It's the same reason you take the chance at 7 instead of a sure 3. Especially against a Commanders or Chiefs offense where you know a lot more points are getting scored. 10 points means giving up a TD/FG doesn't lose you the game as compared to 9 - every point has added value. You go for the free points unless the particulars of a situation dictate it. Examples would be the clock as you described, or if you're playing a putrid offense that likely can't score twice in a half, if your own offense is awful / opposing defense is amazing and your odds of converting are lower, etc. But the Eagles scenario is pretty clear cut that you go for 2 - any coach, any analytics would do that with Hurts needing 1 yard to squeeze out an extra point.
More viewers are cheering for the Philadelphia Eagles. 46% of those planning to watch Super Bowl LIX are rooting for the Eagles, including 12% who say they are backing the Eagles because they do not like the Chiefs and/or do not want them to win again. 39% are cheering for the Chiefs, and 15% are not rooting for a specific team. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...xplained-a-tale-of-malaysias-missing-billions