NFL Playoffs 2021

[camion]

The 4th down play call was one of the gutsiest things I have seen in sports. Wow! I think going for it was an easy call, but the decision to put your backup QB on the move and have him throw a pass while scrambling... I cannot even describe the size of the balls on Andy Reid to make that call.

Great call and beautifully executed. Most people thought they weren't going to run any play, just try to draw the defense offside. Gutsy, but given the element of surprise I think it was also a high percentage call.

[jv001]

I have been rooting for a Chiefs vs. Packers Super Bowl game(since The Football Team is out of the playoffs), but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it turned out to be the Bills instead of the Chiefs. I am concerned about the Packers run game against the very good run defense of the Bucs. What I do not want is to have Troy Aikman call the game. He's up there with Dickie V as announcers I don't like and before anyone says it's because he played for the Cowboys, that's not it. I think Darryl Johnston is a great announcer and he played for the Boys. I think the Conference title games are going to be good ones.

[Acymetric]

Yes they are. Too hard and too fast.

I can't remember anything like it in my time following the NFL. Usually they'll pick a handful of guys (for a long time it was some combination of Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Manning, but occasionally other guys/positions got sprinkled in like Luck, or OBJ, etc.) but the last three years it feels like it is just All Mahomes All The Time. To be fair, he is phenomenal, but a guy (me) can only take so much. I was fully on the Chiefs/Andy Reid bandwagon from Alex Smith's last year there through their Superbowl run last year, but I had to jump off this year.

Great call and beautifully executed. Most people thought they weren't going to run any play, just try to draw the defense offside. Gutsy, but given the element of surprise I think it was also a high percentage call.

I've always wondered why teams didn't do that a little more often on the "obvious" attempts at drawing the defense offsides. A) if the defense is sitting back trying to make sure they don't jump, they're likely to be a split second behind and caught off guard if you actually snap it, and B) actually snapping it there occasionally makes it more likely that the defense might actually jump, since they know sometimes you actually run a play in those spots.

[jv001]

I can't remember anything like it in my time following the NFL. Usually they'll pick a handful of guys (for a long time it was some combination of Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Manning, but occasionally other guys/positions got sprinkled in like Luck, or OBJ, etc.) but the last three years it feels like it is just All Mahomes All The Time. To be fair, he is phenomenal, but a guy (me) can only take so much. I was fully on the Chiefs/Andy Reid bandwagon from Alex Smith's last year there through their Superbowl run last year, but I had to jump off this year.



I've always wondered why teams didn't do that a little more often on the "obvious" attempts at drawing the defense offsides. A) if the defense is sitting back trying to make sure they don't jump, they're likely to be a split second behind and caught off guard if you actually snap it, and B) actually snapping it there occasionally makes it more likely that the defense might actually jump, since they know sometimes you actually run a play in those spots.

I've thought the same thing. Start calling the snap count and back off like they do some times, then come back and repeat the sequence but this time snap the ball. Throwing it deep would be real gutsy.

GoDuke!

[DukieInKansas]

Well, maybe that was what planted the idea in my head. I too had noticed him appearing to favor one of his legs, but I had the volume turned down at the time and was unable to hear whether or not the announcers had noted it. Then later after turning the volume up there was no mention made of him being injured, so I thought perhaps he was fine.

I guess my “premonition” of him getting injured was subconsciously planted in my head after seeing him look a bit gimpy. And then later the concussion happened and he was out for the rest of the game — and maybe the Bills game as well.

If Mahomes is unable to play against the Bills the Chiefs have very little chance of winning. If he plays I think KC wins a very close game.

As for the NFC my heart says Tampa Bay, but my head says the Packers. I hope I’m wrong.

They looked at his foot in the blue tent on the sidelines - taped his toe as I recall. Actually had a shot of him with his shoe off and talking to the trainer/doctor before the tent got fully lowered.

[DukieInKansas]

I can't remember anything like it in my time following the NFL. Usually they'll pick a handful of guys (for a long time it was some combination of Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Manning, but occasionally other guys/positions got sprinkled in like Luck, or OBJ, etc.) but the last three years it feels like it is just All Mahomes All The Time. To be fair, he is phenomenal, but a guy (me) can only take so much. I was fully on the Chiefs/Andy Reid bandwagon from Alex Smith's last year there through their Superbowl run last year, but I had to jump off this year.



I've always wondered why teams didn't do that a little more often on the "obvious" attempts at drawing the defense offsides. A) if the defense is sitting back trying to make sure they don't jump, they're likely to be a split second behind and caught off guard if you actually snap it, and B) actually snapping it there occasionally makes it more likely that the defense might actually jump, since they know sometimes you actually run a play in those spots.

This is interesting to me. We get a lot of Mahomes around here but I thought it was local stuff (other than the State Farm ads). I will say, in his defense, that he is doing a lot of good things in the community. His foundation was a big sponsor of getting out the vote in the KCMO area - even worked at getting Arrowhead as a polling place.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

They looked at his foot in the blue tent on the sidelines - taped his toe as I recall. Actually had a shot of him with his shoe off and talking to the trainer/doctor before the tent got fully lowered.

It looked hyperextended to me. He was definitely not throwing as strong off that foot after it happened.

I don't care much one way or the other about the Chiefs, but I hate injuries.

[DukieInKansas]

It looked hyperextended to me. He was definitely not throwing as strong off that foot after it happened.

I don't care much one way or the other about the Chiefs, but I hate injuries.

Agree on the injuries - I didn't like seeing Garrett limited due to whatever strain/injury he had during the game.

And so no one thinks I'm too much of a homer for the Chiefs, Sorenson should have been called for targeting. Not sure of the rules but I don't think it would have overturned giving the ball to the Chiefs but it would have backed them up 15 and put him out of the game. (If I have my rules correct - but that is highly suspect.)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Agree on the injuries - I didn't like seeing Garrett limited due to whatever strain/injury he had during the game.

And so no one thinks I'm too much of a homer for the Chiefs, Sorenson should have been called for targeting. Not sure of the rules but I don't think it would have overturned giving the ball to the Chiefs but it would have backed them up 15 and put him out of the game. (If I have my rules correct - but that is highly suspect.)

I'm not sure if it would have reversed the change of possession. I've always thought the "fumble through the end zone" rule was WAY out of line. Maybe this gives it the visibility needed to make a rule change.

[Acymetric]

I'm not sure if it would have reversed the change of possession. I've always thought the "fumble through the end zone" rule was WAY out of line. Maybe this gives it the visibility needed to make a rule change.

That is a live ball foul, it would have nullified the play. The change of possession happened after the targeting (no) call, when the ball went out the endzone.

I do agree that the "fumble through the end zone == touchback" was a lame rule, but I don't know exactly what the rule should be. Loss of down, return the ball to the original line of scrimmage?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That is a live ball foul, it would have nullified the play. The change of possession happened after the targeting (no) call, when the ball went out the endzone.

I do agree that the "fumble through the end zone == touchback" was a lame rule, but I don't know exactly what the rule should be. Loss of down, return the ball to the original line of scrimmage?

Romo said "why not just pull it back to the twenty, no change of possession?" Hard to argue with.

[Acymetric]

Romo said "why not just pull it back to the twenty, no change of possession?" Hard to argue with.

That might work too, but then what do you make the down/distance?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That might work too, but then what do you make the down/distance?

*Shrugs* I dunno. First and ten?

Anything is better than giving the ball to the other team. There's no even remotely similar penalty to fumbling out of bounds on the field of play.

[Acymetric]

*Shrugs* I dunno. First and ten?

Anything is better than giving the ball to the other team. There's no even remotely similar penalty to fumbling out of bounds on the field of play.

100% agreed, but you also can't reward fumbling out the endzone by resetting the downs. I think "back to the original line of scrimmage, loss of down" strikes the best balance. I would probably also be ok with "the ball is spotted where the fumble occurred" (which I think is already the rule for fumbles that travel forward and go out of bounds outside the endzone).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

100% agreed, but you also can't reward fumbling out the endzone by resetting the downs. I think "back to the original line of scrimmage, loss of down" strikes the best balance. I would probably also be ok with "the ball is spotted where the fumble occurred".

How would it be a reward? You want to score seven points and have the ball at the end zone. You lose the ball, it slips out of bounds. It would be incredibly hard to do on purpose, and would also be against the intent of scoring seven points. Back it up to the twenty, reset downs.

[budwom]

I'm not sure if it would have reversed the change of possession. I've always thought the "fumble through the end zone" rule was WAY out of line. Maybe this gives it the visibility needed to make a rule change.

That play was a prime example of the dangers of "giving 110 percent."

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That play was a prime example of the dangers of "giving 110 percent."

It was compounded by the blatant targeting call that was missed too.

I'm really impressed the Browns picked themselves back up for the second half.

[Sixthman]

100% agreed, but you also can't reward fumbling out the endzone by resetting the downs. I think "back to the original line of scrimmage, loss of down" strikes the best balance. I would probably also be ok with "the ball is spotted where the fumble occurred" (which I think is already the rule for fumbles that travel forward and go out of bounds outside the endzone).

None of this discussion makes any sense. If the offensive team gets the ball back when a ball goes out in the endzone, that means a loose ball in the end zone goes from a 50/50 ball to about 70/30, as one team doesn't need to possess the ball but to possess the ball or knock it out of bounds while the other has to control it.

[Troublemaker]

Honestly, if they can come back and win (long shot I know) after that play at the end of the first half, it would be one of the more impressive things I have seen in sports.

I'm not sure if it would have reversed the change of possession. I've always thought the "fumble through the end zone" rule was WAY out of line. Maybe this gives it the visibility needed to make a rule change.

Yeah, dumbest rule in football, perhaps. Fumble out-of-bounds at the 1 yard line and it's first-and-goal. Fumble out-of-bounds at the 0 yard line (or -1) and the other team takes possession.

Heinike actually fared better against the Tampa Bay defense than Brees did. I think the Football Team would've been able to handle the Saints today...

I have some Saints partisanship in me, but I really doubt your 7-9 Football Team would've given them much trouble. Heinicke did have a very good game against the Bucs, but the Saints defense is much better (I can provide all the advanced stats like DVOA if needed) and were only killed in this game by the Saints' offense's turnovers. And Washington's LB crew would need to be as great as TB's to shut down Brees and turn him over like TB did. I know Washington has a great D-line but Brees gets the ball out so fast, it's really the LBs that are the key to stopping his short passing game (due to his now pea-shooter arm).

Can I ask a dumb question that I have always wondered about? Romo just talked about how that long drive likely left the Chiefs defense worn out. Why would the Browns offense be less worn out? Weren't their players on the field the whole time (especially the linemen)? Just wondering.

You can think back to any team sport you played while you were younger. It's more tiring to play defense than offense. It's true in basketball, football, soccer, you name it.

That's why if one team has like 40 minutes of time of possession in football, it's the defense that suffers even though the offense was on the field at the same time for as many minutes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

None of this discussion makes any sense. If the offensive team gets the ball back when a ball goes out in the endzone, that means a loose ball in the end zone goes from a 50/50 ball to about 70/30, as one team doesn't need to possess the ball but to possess the ball or knock it out of bounds while the other has to control it.

What? Explain the strategic advantage here. I'm missing it.