HawkShack.com

Man! Two very weird, almost inexplicable, endings to NFL games in two days. For the life of me, with only 15 seconds left and the ball already on the 35, I can't understand the decision to try one more play just to get the ball a little closer for a field goal. I mean they had no time outs left and their only resort would have been a sideline pass and out of bounds which the Chiefs would have been heavily stacking the defense against. I don't think there would have been enough time to line up and spike the ball if there was an incompletion or if the Raiders went for a completion over the middle. And what made the center hike the ball when he did? Was that ever figured out?

That game was closer than I expected.

Boy, the Chiefs sure have lucked out. Earlier this season, they won a game against Denver on a blocked FG attempt.

Despite their record, the Chiefs aren't nearly as dominant as they have been in years past. Mahomes isn't having an MVP-type season, perhaps his worst in years, although his worst are career seasons for most quarterbacks. There's no way that the Raiders, starting Adian O'Connell at their quarterback, should have been on the same field with them. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them get knocked out of the playoffs early.

It's been a pretty entertaining Turkey Day/Black Friday.

Yep, the Chiefs have been scraping by in a lot of games this season. They have not been the same since trading Tyreke Hill. They don't seem to have a big play threat anymore. I will say that Mahomes seems to always make the right decision with the ball, however, so they don't shoot themselves in the foot. And their defense is perhaps better than it has ever been. So, games never get out of hand for them and then Mahomes comes through with a wizard play to pull it out towards the end. Kelce has sure been relatively quiet this year.

The Chiefs have been very lucky this year but luck doesn’t last forever and often when good luck dries up then a string of bad luck follows.

Yeah, I expect the Chiefs dominance to end this season, the most likely culprit being the Bills. Josh Allen seems to have fixed his interception problems. He's thrown just 5 so far this season, less than half the number Mahomes has tossed, and is a leading candidate for MVP. They've won their last 6 in a row, which includes a two score win over the Chiefs. We'll get a good look at them tomorrow as they play the Niners on SNF.

And speaking of the Niners-Bills game, it has the potential of making the Steelers-Browns blizzard look like a weekend in Hawaii:

As the San Francisco 49ers prepare to face the Buffalo Bills this weekend, the New York state’s latest weather forecast has only amplified the intensity of snowfall expected this weekend in the lead up to the game. According to the report, in the “most likely scenario” there will be 20-30 inches of snowfall in Buffalo this weekend prior to kickoff on Sunday. The heaviest snow is expected to fall from Saturday afternoon into Sunday. The report also notes that there is a possibility that Buffalo is inundated with more than 3 feet of snow.

Kickoff isn't until 8:20 pm local, so the majority of the snow may have fallen before gametime. Last season, the governor of NY canceled a playoff game scheduled to be played in Buffalo due to expected snowfall as she didn't like the prospect of so many fans driving to the game during a major weather event.

trents wrote:Man! Two very weird, almost inexplicable, endings to NFL games in two days. For the life of me, with only 15 seconds left and the ball already on the 35, I can't understand the decision to try one more play just to get the ball a little closer for a field goal. I mean they had no time outs left and their only resort would have been a sideline pass and out of bounds which the Chiefs would have been heavily stacking the defense against. I don't think there would have been enough time to line up and spike the ball if there was an incompletion or if the Raiders went for a completion over the middle. And what made the center hike the ball when he did? Was that ever figured out?

I agree, a pretty bad decision. The risk/reward in that situation doesn't seem worth it. It has to be a quick pass to the sideline which really gives the defense an advantage in coverage. At best you might get 5-7 yards, but a sack, throw short of the sticks, INT, or your guy doesn't get out of bounds on a completion and the game is over. Too many bad options for a possible 5 yards. I know 5 yards could be the difference in making or missing a kick, especially when your kicker had missed 3 already, but just too much of a risk. I imagine they didn't want to leave the Chiefs with any time either. I was screaming at the TV to let the clock wind down before spiking it. Once you got the ball to the 35 you live with that kick. Let the clock wind down and spike it with 3 seconds left.

trents wrote:Man! Two very weird, almost inexplicable, endings to NFL games in two days. For the life of me, with only 15 seconds left and the ball already on the 35, I can't understand the decision to try one more play just to get the ball a little closer for a field goal. I mean they had no time outs left and their only resort would have been a sideline pass and out of bounds which the Chiefs would have been heavily stacking the defense against. I don't think there would have been enough time to line up and spike the ball if there was an incompletion or if the Raiders went for a completion over the middle. And what made the center hike the ball when he did? Was that ever figured out?

mykc14 wrote:I agree, a pretty bad decision. The risk/reward in that situation doesn't seem worth it. It has to be a quick pass to the sideline which really gives the defense an advantage in coverage. At best you might get 5-7 yards, but a sack, throw short of the sticks, INT, or your guy doesn't get out of bounds on a completion and the game is over. Too many bad options for a possible 5 yards. I know 5 yards could be the difference in making or missing a kick, especially when your kicker had missed 3 already, but just too much of a risk. I imagine they didn't want to leave the Chiefs with any time either. I was screaming at the TV to let the clock wind down before spiking it. Once you got the ball to the 35 you live with that kick. Let the clock wind down and spike it with 3 seconds left.

That decision wasn't nearly as bad as the Bears decision not to call timeout at the end of their game vs. the Lions. With 15 seconds left, there's plenty of time for one play to the sidelines to gain a few extra yards, and if it's not there, you immediately air mail it and take the FG attempt. You're talking about a 50-yard field goal on a cold day where an extra 6-8 yards could have made a huge difference. Their kicker is just 5-9 from 50+ this season.

Besides, the real controversy in that game was the center snap on the Raiders last play. It was definitely a penalty, but Raiders players claim that they heard a whistle blowing the play dead, in which case it should have been called a false start instead of letting the play continue, which resulted in a fumble and turnover and a declinable illegal shift penalty. Social media is going wild, with conspiracy theories and accusations about Goodell favoring the Chiefs.

Despite the controversies, it was a very entertaining Thanksgiving weekend. I heard them say on the SNF broadcast that there had been more one score games than at any other week in league history.

River Dog wrote:
That decision wasn't nearly as bad as the Bears decision not to call timeout at the end of their game vs. the Lions. With 15 seconds left, there's plenty of time for one play to the sidelines to gain a few extra yards, and if it's not there, you immediately air mail it and take the FG attempt. You're talking about a 50-yard field goal on a cold day where an extra 6-8 yards could have made a huge difference. Their kicker is just 5-9 from 50+ this season.

Besides, the real controversy in that game was the center snap on the Raiders last play. It was definitely a penalty, but Raiders players claim that they heard a whistle blowing the play dead, in which case it should have been called a false start instead of letting the play continue, which resulted in a fumble and turnover and a declinable illegal shift penalty. Social media is going wild, with conspiracy theories and accusations about Goodell favoring the Chiefs.

Despite the controversies, it was a very entertaining Thanksgiving weekend. I heard them say on the SNF broadcast that there had been more one score games than at any other week in league history.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. If I'm the chiefs I am thrilled that they are going to try and run a play in that situation. As a defense you have every advantage and I just don't like the risk/reward in that situation. I do agree that in that even 5 yards would be helpful, but from 40-49 yards he's a 90%+ kicker over the last 4 years (this one would have been 49). He is 5-9 on the season, but he was 5 of 6 before that game and his misses that game were from 58, 56, and 55. Even if you give his odds 80%-85% of making a 49 yarder in that situation (which I think is low), what do the odds go up if you kick from 42? I'll give you 5-10%- so if they got 7 yards (and got the kick off) you're looking at 85-90% win probability vs. 80-85% from just kicking it and not trying to gain any extra yards. If you go for it there is more than a 5-10% chance that something will go wrong and you will lose the game in that situation. Obviously I made up most of these percentages, but the point is it just isn't worth the risk. I mean the previous drive they settled for a 58 yarder on 4th and 11! You like the odds of hitting a 58 yarder vs. going for it on 4th and 11, but you need to give your kicker and extra 6 yards with 15 seconds left and no time outs? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree about the Bears decision being worse, though. No situational awareness by Williams, who was still trying to justify calling an audible in that situation. He could have hiked the ball with 15 seconds left and had time to get back into field goal range or you call the timeout with 30 seconds left. Either way you cannot get into the position to hike the ball with only 6 seconds left in the game while you have a timeout in your pocket!! Crazy.

River Dog wrote:
That decision wasn't nearly as bad as the Bears decision not to call timeout at the end of their game vs. the Lions. With 15 seconds left, there's plenty of time for one play to the sidelines to gain a few extra yards, and if it's not there, you immediately air mail it and take the FG attempt. You're talking about a 50-yard field goal on a cold day where an extra 6-8 yards could have made a huge difference. Their kicker is just 5-9 from 50+ this season.

Besides, the real controversy in that game was the center snap on the Raiders last play. It was definitely a penalty, but Raiders players claim that they heard a whistle blowing the play dead, in which case it should have been called a false start instead of letting the play continue, which resulted in a fumble and turnover and a declinable illegal shift penalty. Social media is going wild, with conspiracy theories and accusations about Goodell favoring the Chiefs.

Despite the controversies, it was a very entertaining Thanksgiving weekend. I heard them say on the SNF broadcast that there had been more one score games than at any other week in league history.

mykc14 wrote:We're going to have to disagree on this one. If I'm the chiefs I am thrilled that they are going to try and run a play in that situation. As a defense you have every advantage and I just don't like the risk/reward in that situation. I do agree that in that even 5 yards would be helpful, but from 40-49 yards he's a 90%+ kicker over the last 4 years (this one would have been 49). He is 5-9 on the season, but he was 5 of 6 before that game and his misses that game were from 58, 56, and 55. Even if you give his odds 80%-85% of making a 49 yarder in that situation (which I think is low), what do the odds go up if you kick from 42? I'll give you 5-10%- so if they got 7 yards (and got the kick off) you're looking at 85-90% win probability vs. 80-85% from just kicking it and not trying to gain any extra yards. If you go for it there is more than a 5-10% chance that something will go wrong and you will lose the game in that situation. Obviously I made up most of these percentages, but the point is it just isn't worth the risk. I mean the previous drive they settled for a 58 yarder on 4th and 11! You like the odds of hitting a 58 yarder vs. going for it on 4th and 11, but you need to give your kicker and extra 6 yards with 15 seconds left and no time outs? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I guess it depends on how much you trust your quarterback and your offense in general. The QB needs to know to get rid of the ball quickly and not take a sack, the offensive line needs to know not to get a false start or holding penalty, etc. If the QB sees the defense backed off 10 yards, then take the easy completion. If they're playing tight, then air mail it.

There's also the possibility that the kicker might have had some input on the decision. I recall years ago when Steven Hauschka told Pete he didn't feel comfortable kicking a 50 yarder, so we went for it on 4th down and converted.

But back to the point I raised about the officiating controversy on the Raiders' last play. Raiders players swear that they heard a whistle blow right after the fumbled snap, indicating a false start. Isn't the technology available for replay to detect whether or not a whistle blew, and if so, what frame in the replay it blew? They do have audio recordings available.