GT: Buccaneers at Chiefs MNF

[broller]

That was on him, though. He inexplicably called timeout with 30 seconds to go, when they couldve easily run it down til about 15 seconds left. Pat is an ATG, but that doesnt mean he cant be stopped in that situation. Detroit stopped him in that same situation in the 2023 opener. The LA Rams in 2018 on MNF, even the Colts in 2022. The Bills picked Pat off in Arrowhead when he had the chance to drive down 2 or 3. The focus should be on getting the lead, not prolonging the game when youre shorthanded, against a superior team. 2 yards to get a lead, or the possibility of winning a toss and having to drive 60 to 70 yards for a td? Simple choice in my opinion.The Chargers did it vs KC and the made playoffs because of it

I agree if he had dropped it to 15 to go for 2

I disagree with the Charger game comparison because that was a walk off. With no time or negligible time left it's a no brainer

It wouldn't have been wrong to have gone for 2, but I think a lot of people are pretending that had they gone for 2 the game would have been won. It wouldn't have been. And comparing it to the Chargers in 2018 or the Ravens on opening night isn't an equal comparison because those were walk off decisions.

Yeah there are examples of teams stopping the Chiefs late, but there are also examples to the contrary. 2018 playoffs against NE , 2019 SB, 2022 playoffs v the Bengals and Eagles, 2023 SB etc.

It's also not a guarantee to get the 2 yards. So the comparison really should be "2 yards to potentially get the lead versus to potentially win in OT." Mind you, they wouldn't necessarily need to score a TD in OT.


Again, I'm not saying going for 2 would have been wrong. I appreciate aggressive play. I'm saying just that the situation wasn't the same as Baltimore's idea after Likely's near TD or LAC in 2018.

What was analogous to LAC in 2018 was NE v Tennessee. Mayo should have gone for two there.

 

[premier58]

@broller you say that they(Tampa Bay) wouldnt have had to necessarily score a td to win in OT..So youre saying that they score a fg with the first possession, so youre trusting them to stop KC with 4 downs, with the clock being a non factor?? Or are you saying that they stop KC and force a punt and then win with a fg? If both of those are possibilities, then why are you afraid of giving it to KC with little time left, needing fg range, in regulation? Time or not, you play for the lead. Voluntarily extending a game where Evans/Godwin are inactive and your defense is gassed and cannot get a stop, is extremely cowardly and senseless. You fail to factor in the rhythm and momentum TB had on that last drive. You lose all of that when you go to overtime.

 

[broller]

@broller you say that they(Tampa Bay) wouldnt have had to necessarily score a td to win in OT..So youre saying that they score a fg with the first possession, so youre trusting them to stop KC with 4 downs, with the clock being a non factor?? Or are you saying that they stop KC and force a punt and then win with a fg? If both of those are possibilities, then why are you afraid of giving it to KC with little time left, needing fg range, in regulation? Time or not, you play for the lead. Voluntarily extending a game where Evans/Godwin are inactive and your defense is gassed and cannot get a stop, is extremely cowardly and senseless. You fail to factor in the rhythm and momentum TB had on that last drive. You lose all of that when you go to overtime.

I'm saying both are *possibilities* I wasn't scared of giving it to KC. I was saying the decision to go for 2 wasn't as cut and dry in this situation as it was in the Baltimore or LAC situations. Those situations a 2 pt convert GUARANTEES a win. With Tampa it did not.

The Bucs just forced a punt the drive prior to Tampa's game tying drive. Again, I would have been all for Bowles going for 2 there, but I can see why he went the other way. I would have gone for it though. I would be criticizing him if it were a walk off situation.

 

[premier58]

@broller out of curiousity, how did you feel about Belichick going for it on 4th and 3 from his own 28, at Indianapolis back in 2009?

 

[broller]

@broller out of curiousity, how did you feel about Belichick going for it on 4th and 3 from his own 28, at Indianapolis back in 2009?

In the moment, I thought the 4th and 2 was the wrong decision. But later that year in retrospect I thought it was the right decision, especially because it would have won the game barring a screw up on the kneel downs.

I also thought Sammy Morris? actually got the 1st.

 

[premier58]

In the moment, I thought the 4th and 2 was the wrong decision. But later that year in retrospect I thought it was the right decision, especially because it would have won the game barring a screw up on the kneel downs.

I also thought Sammy Morris? actually got the 1st.

Kevin Faulk. I thought he got it,.too. indy got a lil home cooking on that spot. I understood it, but I thought it sent a bad message to his defense and it had a snowball effect the rest of the season. Make Manning go 70 to beat you. Coincidentally,.Mannings season ended on a pick 6 in the SB as New Orleans masterfully used a bend but dont break scheme. The Belichick special.

 

[broller]

Kevin Faulk. I thought he got it,.too. indy got a lil home cooking on that spot. I understood it, but I thought it sent a bad message to his defense and it had a snowball effect the rest of the season. Make Manning go 70 to beat you. Coincidentally,.Mannings season ended on a pick 6 in the SB as New Orleans masterfully used a bend but dont break scheme. The Belichick special.

Right. Faulk.

I remember Rodney Harrison was on the NBC broadcast and didn't like it. But that defense was trash that year so I get why Bill didn't trust them.