Week 15 TNF: Kansas City Chiefs 9-4 at Los Angeles Chargers 8-5

[notthatbluestuff]

Back in October, Chiefs were buried and Mahomes had been “exposed.”

[Jakuvious]

Scrolled through the thread as I watched the game. Couldn't see it live as I was working, but rewatched it after I got home, managing to avoid spoilers.

And man, reading all these posts, some people really just struggle with statistics. Staley's decisions were 100% fine. Like @Broncofan pointed out, some of the playcalls following those decisions were NOT. The four straight pass attempts on the first drive were terrible. We're missing our best DT, our best LB, and our slot CB. Their OL dominated the entire game. We had no answer for them just running dives or QB sneaks on any short yardage or goal line situation. But they insisted on passing, and then when they did run, they gave it to Kelley instead of Jackson or Ekeler, and we all saw what happened there. Less than a yard, let Herbert sneak it. More than a yard but less than like 5, just give the ball up the middle to the two backs that were killing us. Our secondary was intact, their LT was hurt, their receivers were banged up, Herbert completed 57% of his passes, while our interior was weak and allowing 5+ per carry, and they did not take advantage enough at the most crucial moments. That was the issue with their decisions, not the choices to go for it.

But again, the decisions themselves were fine. The entire idea with going with the percentages, is over the long term, it will lead to success. In the short term, it can vary wildly in either direction. That's how statistics work. Tom Brady is just under a 70% completion percentage on the season. That doesn't mean if he throws 10 passes he will complete 7 of them. He can go 5 for 10 or 10 for 10, but over the long term, he'll get back around that 68% area. You're going to have stretches on the negative side of the results and on the positive side of the results. But this whole argument people take up, that single games or single decisions disprove the entire validity of statistics and probability is just stupid. Like, we've never had this problem with field goals. You don't see a mad rush of pundits and fans every time a field goal is missed saying, I told you field goals were stupid and people shouldn't try them. Staley, and every other coach, knows they're going to fail some of the 4th down tries. They might even fail a few in a row. But that doesn't invalidate the process or the statistics. Going 0/3 in a short stretch (and for the record, it wasn't 0/3, it was 2/5, but no one wants to talk about the 2) should not change how you approach the next decision. Maybe you lose a game a FG would've won because you fail, but you're also going to win some games that FGs would've lost. The idea is, going with the statistically better play is going to lead to, in the long term, more of the latter than the former. But you can't see that if you're not capable of seeing a bigger picture. If you only know how to look at one game or one choice, and the short term result of it, you're never going to understand something like this. And that's where the Fox broadcast crew is definitely at, right now. 

There's also just a horrendous trend of results based analysis, and being unable to evaluate a decision without the benefit of knowing the result. It's like when people try to evaluate draft pick trades based on who they wind up picking. Like, a bad decision can be successful, and vice versa. But a bad decision with a positive result doesn't morph into a good decision. It remains a bad choice, with a good result. I could bet all my money on the Jets to win out the rest of the season. That's a terrible choice. Even if the Jets wind up doing that, with all information available to us today, it is a terrible decision. The result would not change that if it miraculously worked out.

[Jakuvious]

8 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

Back in October, Chiefs were buried and Mahomes had been “exposed.”

The rest of the AFC really failed royally to capitalize on the opening that was there. We had a rough patch, we lost key games to what looked like every major player in the AFC at the time, and the #1 seed (or really, even a high seed at all) seemed out of reach, and then Buffalo couldn't be Jacksonville or Indy, Tennessee couldn't handle the Jets or Texans, Baltimore lost to Miami and all their divisional foes, and LAC fell to Denver. And suddenly it's New England and Kansas City again. Unless Tennessee can win out.

[kingseanjohn]

2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

That's how statistics work.

I'd guess most people haven't taken a statistics class in a long time, if ever. That isn't targeted at anyone in this thread, but in general. The US doesn't rank well in mathematics... or any education really.

[Kael]

6 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The rest of the AFC really failed royally to capitalize on the opening that was there. We had a rough patch, we lost key games to what looked like every major player in the AFC at the time, and the #1 seed (or really, even a high seed at all) seemed out of reach, and then Buffalo couldn't be Jacksonville or Indy, Tennessee couldn't handle the Jets or Texans, Baltimore lost to Miami and all their divisional foes, and LAC fell to Denver. And suddenly it's New England and Kansas City again. Unless Tennessee can win out.

KC absolutely deserves everything they have fought for at this point.

Putting it down to NE and KC is a little short sighted.

I would put money on at least one of those not making the AFC Championship

[Jakuvious]

Just now, Kael said:

KC absolutely deserves everything they have fought for at this point.

Putting it down to NE and KC is a little short sighted.

I would put money on at least one of those not making the AFC Championship

More talking about the #1 seed than anything beyond that. Anyone who makes the playoffs in the AFC will have a legit shot against anyone they're put against. The fun part about teams being up and down is that their highs can win just about any game, and their lows can lose just about any game.

But, for seeding, Tennessee and Baltimore are the only teams not 2+ games behind KC and New England. Baltimore just had their QB get injured. So it's down to Tennessee to compete there, and they did not look inspired prior to crushing Urban Meyer's last chance.

[Kael]

2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

More talking about the #1 seed

Fair enough, that is you and NE.

[evilpimp972]

56 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Scrolled through the thread as I watched the game. Couldn't see it live as I was working, but rewatched it after I got home, managing to avoid spoilers.

And man, reading all these posts, some people really just struggle with statistics. Staley's decisions were 100% fine. Like @Broncofan pointed out, some of the playcalls following those decisions were NOT. The four straight pass attempts on the first drive were terrible. We're missing our best DT, our best LB, and our slot CB. Their OL dominated the entire game. We had no answer for them just running dives or QB sneaks on any short yardage or goal line situation. But they insisted on passing, and then when they did run, they gave it to Kelley instead of Jackson or Ekeler, and we all saw what happened there. Less than a yard, let Herbert sneak it. More than a yard but less than like 5, just give the ball up the middle to the two backs that were killing us. Our secondary was intact, their LT was hurt, their receivers were banged up, Herbert completed 57% of his passes, while our interior was weak and allowing 5+ per carry, and they did not take advantage enough at the most crucial moments. That was the issue with their decisions, not the choices to go for it.

But again, the decisions themselves were fine. The entire idea with going with the percentages, is over the long term, it will lead to success. In the short term, it can vary wildly in either direction. That's how statistics work. Tom Brady is just under a 70% completion percentage on the season. That doesn't mean if he throws 10 passes he will complete 7 of them. He can go 5 for 10 or 10 for 10, but over the long term, he'll get back around that 68% area. You're going to have stretches on the negative side of the results and on the positive side of the results. But this whole argument people take up, that single games or single decisions disprove the entire validity of statistics and probability is just stupid. Like, we've never had this problem with field goals. You don't see a mad rush of pundits and fans every time a field goal is missed saying, I told you field goals were stupid and people shouldn't try them. Staley, and every other coach, knows they're going to fail some of the 4th down tries. They might even fail a few in a row. But that doesn't invalidate the process or the statistics. Going 0/3 in a short stretch (and for the record, it wasn't 0/3, it was 2/5, but no one wants to talk about the 2) should not change how you approach the next decision. Maybe you lose a game a FG would've won because you fail, but you're also going to win some games that FGs would've lost. The idea is, going with the statistically better play is going to lead to, in the long term, more of the latter than the former. But you can't see that if you're not capable of seeing a bigger picture. If you only know how to look at one game or one choice, and the short term result of it, you're never going to understand something like this. And that's where the Fox broadcast crew is definitely at, right now. 

There's also just a horrendous trend of results based analysis, and being unable to evaluate a decision without the benefit of knowing the result. It's like when people try to evaluate draft pick trades based on who they wind up picking. Like, a bad decision can be successful, and vice versa. But a bad decision with a positive result doesn't morph into a good decision. It remains a bad choice, with a good result. I could bet all my money on the Jets to win out the rest of the season. That's a terrible choice. Even if the Jets wind up doing that, with all information available to us today, it is a terrible decision. The result would not change that if it miraculously worked out.

Only problem I had with Staley was going for it before the half, they could've been up 7. When they failed, they didn't put KC in a bad starting position, to me that's just overkill.

But I like his approach tbn

[NYRaider]

Travis Kelcee is absolutely unreal

[WheatieMan]

Fell asleep at halftime, but looks like it was a cool game.

[JonStark]

3 hours ago, WheatieMan said:

Fell asleep at halftime, but looks like it was a cool game.

Not if you were facing Mahomes in fantasy. Game should've ended at halftime. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Both Chargers/Chiefs games were great this year. Hopefully these two squads can knuckle up in the AFC title game. 

[kramxel]

BTW, for those wondering about the decision of 2pointer VS XP:

 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

7 hours ago, notthatbluestuff said:

Back in October, Chiefs were buried and Mahomes had been “exposed.”

Mahomes didn't even have a good game last night tbh

[Jameson_Neat]

1 hour ago, kramxel said:

BTW, for those wondering about the decision of 2pointer VS XP:

 

There was just too much time to go for two in that scenario.

At the five or six minute mark, I think it's much more palatable.

Then again, teams down by 8 with four minutes to go rarely come back and win the game, think it's around 8-9%.

A lot to digest.