Week 13 GDT vs Chiefs

[BroncosFan2010]

Quote

Fangio wasn’t wrong.  As much as people want to fight that, he wasn’t.  

 

This is where I am too. We have a horrible QB and a great defense. Punting there was the logical decision. Sadly its only logical to punt in that situation if your Denver with Lock or Washington back when Haskins was starting. The decision would have been totally insane for 30/32 franchises, but our QB play is soo poor that you punt there.

[AKRNA]

1 hour ago, germ-x said:

Fangio was not throwing in the towel.  It may not have been the right call, but Fangio was playing to win and he banked on his defense being better than his QB.

That is 100% what happened and that should be what’s discussed more than the decision.  The fact that there wasn’t a belief in this offense (more importantly the QB) to pick up 3 yards.  They’d rather put the ball in the hands of the best player in football and try to stop him.

Fangio wasn’t wrong.  As much as people want to fight that, he wasn’t.  

Personally I thought it was a good call. Still 6:15 on the clock, at least one more possession each. Rather than go for the 1st with the worst QB in the NFL,  why not put KC deep in their territory and count on your defense to either stop them and force a punt or hold them to 3 so your offense has a chance to win on the last possession?

Even if we make that 1st we're not going to run out the clock, maybe 3 minutes tops. Best case? We score 7 and give Mahomes 3 minutes to match. Pretty unlikely we do that. Not even 50/50 we make the first. More likely we'd run a couple minutes off, kick a FG, then watch Mahomes drive them easily down the field for a winning FG.

If there were only a minute or two on the clock, then by all means go for it. There weren't.

[lomaxgrUK]

All of this defense of Vic's decision might make sense if we were in the playoff hunt. We aren't. You have to be using those situations to help figure out what we have at QB.  And like others have said - even with a poor QB, 3 yards to gain is a favourable position to be in.

I just don't get the justification for the decision. Mahomes was killing us in between the 20's, so what goes it to punt it down to the 10? If anything, turning the ball over on the 50 speeds up the best case scenario of stopping the Chiefs inside the redzone. 

With 6 mins to go and a need to run the clock down, you're getting Andy Reid's best running plays and short passing plays. We couldn't handle them.

[French Fan]

9 hours ago, BroncosFan2010 said:

This is where I am too. We have a horrible QB and a great defense. Punting there was the logical decision. Sadly its only logical to punt in that situation if your Denver with Lock or Washington back when Haskins was starting. The decision would have been totally insane for 30/32 franchises, but our QB play is soo poor that you punt there.

How many stop the defense made against KC ?? 

2 ...and 1 was a TD (the first possesion).

Continuing to change QB every year won't change anything Lock has been the best option since 2015.
0 pre season with a system he doesnt know, a disastrous line. How many RTs this season? Cushenberry 35 OUT OF 35 PFF. We can blame him for everything but when the only game plan was to let KC advance to the redzone and then only take "FG" (this is the reason why we are trying to convert at 2 pts and hopes we are 18-18 in the last Denver drive) it is a lamentable strategy . I have never been so bored in such a close game.
Fed up with the debate on Lock is he the right QB or not. Anyway on this forum it has become a cabal. There is no more Debate.

We have a future GM with LomaxgrUK for example he should replace Elway that would please.
On that for me this forum is finished. TIRED. You have lost a limb. Good continuation.

[lomaxgrUK]

Why are you bringing me into this? Strange man. 

[broncos67]

12 hours ago, BroncosFan2010 said:

This is where I am too. We have a horrible QB and a great defense. Punting there was the logical decision. Sadly its only logical to punt in that situation if your Denver with Lock or Washington back when Haskins was starting. The decision would have been totally insane for 30/32 franchises, but our QB play is soo poor that you punt there.

Eh, I'd rather go down swinging and take a chance than playing scared. That's been Denver's MO since Foxball (sans Peyton.) This isn't a playoff team, not even close, why not give it a try? If you trust your defense, trust them at any spot on the field, IMO.

It's immaterial at the end of the day. Sitting at the 10th pick and not a lot of upside for additional wins this season. Maybe against the Chargers. Not the worst thing. Get more talent.

[germ-x]

I guess I just don’t believe Fangio deserves any heat for not going for it on 4th and 3.  If he’d have went for it, fine, he didn’t but it doesn’t mean it was the wrong choice because it wasn’t.

I get the stance of well we’re not a playoff team so we should’ve went for it or we need to see what Lock has, but at the end of the day those reasons have nothing to do with winning a football game.  Maybe it’s somewhere in the thread, but I don’t believe I’ve read a single post saying Denver should’ve went for it on 4th and 3 because it gave them the best chance to win.  Instead it’s they should’ve went for it for reasons other than winning a football game.

At the end of the day Fangio was coaching to win.  Being out of the playoff hunt had nothing to do with it, seeing what Lock has had nothing to do with it.  Fangio made a logical choice in putting faith in the defense over the offense.  Makes complete sense.  If he’d have went for it I’d have gotten it too, but the choice to do so would’ve been because it was the best chance to win the game, not any other reason.

[broncosfan_101]

1 hour ago, broncos67 said:

It's immaterial at the end of the day. Sitting at the 10th pick and not a lot of upside for additional wins this season. Maybe against the Chargers. Not the worst thing. Get more talent.

The lowest that a 5-11 team has picked in the last 5 years is 8th, so limiting it to one more win is essential. Finishing 2-2 means we’re out of the top 10, probably in the 12-13 range because of our SOS. 
 

Losing out gets us in the top 5. 

[lomaxgrUK]

2 hours ago, germ-x said:

Maybe it’s somewhere in the thread, but I don’t believe I’ve read a single post saying Denver should’ve went for it on 4th and 3 because it gave them the best chance to win.

A fair few people have made reference to how a Punt was only a net 35 yard gain, which was nothing to the Chiefs all game up to our redzone.

If we gain the 4th and 3, we run more clock whilst obviously getting closer to scoring points.

If we fail, the Chiefs can't burn 5 minutes off the clock; they either score or we stop them. 

Not full proof clearly because the Chiefs could have then scored 7, but what had Fangio seen from the game to think we would stop the Chiefs inside their 20 to get the ball back with enough time?

[germ-x]

6 minutes ago, lomaxgrUK said:

A fair few people have made reference to how a Punt was only a net 35 yard gain, which was nothing to the Chiefs all game up to our redzone.

If we gain the 4th and 3, we run more clock whilst obviously getting closer to scoring points.

If we fail, the Chiefs can't burn 5 minutes off the clock; they either score or we stop them. 

Not full proof clearly because the Chiefs could have then scored 7, but what had Fangio seen from the game to think we would stop the Chiefs inside their 20 to get the ball back with enough time?

We can go back and forth on it.  What had the offense done (more importantly Lock) to go for it?

I get what all is being said and I don’t necessarily disagree.  The team could’ve went for it and I’d have backed the call.  I don’t know if there was a “right” call is more what I’m saying, which is why I’m not giving Fangio heat for it.  I think it was a logical decision.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

A fair few people have made reference to how a Punt was only a net 35 yard gain, which was nothing to the Chiefs all game up to our redzone.

If we gain the 4th and 3, we run more clock whilst obviously getting closer to scoring points.

If we fail, the Chiefs can't burn 5 minutes off the clock; they either score or we stop them. 

Not full proof clearly because the Chiefs could have then scored 7, but what had Fangio seen from the game to think we would stop the Chiefs inside their 20 to get the ball back with enough time?

To double down on the above point - no one argues that DEN would have to stop KC either way.

But, going for it on 4th and 3 at the 50 down 3, why win probability says it's a no-brainer to go for it:

1.   It gives the O 2 chances to succeed - right there and then, and if they fail, since a stop is needed regardless, later on.   If they make it, and score, their win probability goes up astronomically.   If they miss it, they're still left in the same situation of needing to stop KC (less yardage, I get it, but it also leaves more time in the ensuing drive, too).

2.   It gives the team a chance to score 7 with a full playbook (not the 2 minute drill with no OT's left) - and then put KC into "must-score TD" mode, which then becomes more predictable to defend.   

#1 is why the win probability of going for it so weighted to going for it, even with bad O's.   It's definitely a sign of how little trust there is in the O that the fanbase is split - it's hard to argue Lock & the O haven't done a lot to earn that faith.    But the above is why the win probability is so weighed heavily to going for it.  It doesn't invalidate the lack of faith in the O (and by extension) & Lock's ability to convert.   It's just that if we don't have faith to go for it on 4th and 3 down 3 at midfield....well, that's a sign the O is nowhere near where it needs to be for us to have true sustainable hope for 2021+.

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Broncofan

[AKRNA]

24 minutes ago, germ-x said:

We can go back and forth on it.  What had the offense done (more importantly Lock) to go for it?

I get what all is being said and I don’t necessarily disagree.  The team could’ve went for it and I’d have backed the call.  I don’t know if there was a “right” call is more what I’m saying, which is why I’m not giving Fangio heat for it.  I think it was a logical decision.

That's a good take. 

[Joe_is_the_best]

Conservative coaches make conservative calls. Especially defensive ones. Has nothing to do with the offense.

[Joe_is_the_best]

1 hour ago, lomaxgrUK said:

what had Fangio seen from the game to think we would stop the Chiefs inside their 20 to get the ball back with enough time?

This is what it boils down to, for me.

[BullsandBroncos]

2 hours ago, Joe_is_the_best said:

Conservative coaches make conservative calls. Especially defensive ones. Has nothing to do with the offense.

 

1 hour ago, Joe_is_the_best said:

This is what it boils down to, for me.

Ditto to everything. Defensive head coaches basically get an orgasmic experience from their offense being worse than their defense. It's sometimes annoying. Especially when you're out of the playoffs and should go for it more anyway.