The call

[jetlord 10,209]

I've reflected on why Kubiak took the long shot FG last night that cost DEN the game that they should have won.  Maybe it wasn't as stupid as it first appeared.  If the Donks settled for a tie, they would be one and a half games behind OAK with a loss already to them.  Tough to overcome with games against the Pats and in Arrowhead.  There was a chance they could win right there and even with a miss, the top defense had a very good of shutting down the Chiefs with only one minute left.  I don't know the odds of making a 62 yd. FG, but it has to be better in DEN than most places and the kicker has the leg strength.  Going for it on fourth and ten had lower odds although Gaines was very vulnerable.  If they failed, the Chiefs would only have eight more yards to go to get within range.  Punting was settling for a tie at home against a decimated team and not good overall for the reasons mentioned above. So maybe Kubiak had his reasons and it wasn't such a bad gamble.  Lucky for the Chiefs that he lost the gamble.

[West 6,714]

He explained it well after the game.

 

He said his kicker routinely makes these kicks and he was playing to win.

 

My take is that he was actually coaching against the Chiefs and the Faders.  He knew Oakland had already won and he knew a tie would not help him win the division.

 

w

[azchief21 5,278]

The kick reminded me of myself when I golf. If I swing too hard for distance, I'm going to hook or slice. Glad they decided to do it though and I agree with the reasons above.

[KCSLC2008 606]

A couple things turned in our favor. If we had landed on the ball in the end zone we would've gotten seven instead of a safety, but then we would've had to kick off to them. Who knows what happens then? Instead, we get Hill's kickoff return touchdown.

 

When Gaines got burned for the touchdown with three minutes left, I have to be honest that I did not think that we were going to get eight points. I thought maybe six and with our boneheaded decisions in our history, I would've been less surprised with the field-goal and onside kick (if we somehow got down the field quick enough and faced a fourth down). But when he scored, it actually gave us the ball back and we don't often score that quickly so three minutes was what we needed. We didn't have any timeouts, so I don't think we could've done it any faster. This wasn't a score and burn clock. It was score as fast as you can strategy but knowing you had some time.

 

If the Denver player had gone down at the one or had stepped out of bounds, or something, they would have been able to run plenty of clock out and get a field goal to make it a four point lead which would still require a touchdown. I'm not saying that I wouldn't take the points to make it an eight point game, but just like you would've taken a touchdown over the safety, it might've worked out in our favor this way. It could have ended like the Tampa Bay game where they got just another first down and run the clock out. Again, taking the points is probably the right thing to do. It wasn't likely for us to go down the field and get the two point conversion.

 

And that leads me to another question, they could've gone for two and had a nine point lead or missed and had a seven point lead. The reason why I say this is because if they were willing to gamble a 62 yard kick, they should be able to gamble a two-point conversion. If we then scored we would likely take the point after and go into overtime anyway.

 

They of course wanted us not to score and then wanted us to fail on two-point conversion to lose as opposed to overtime, but that worked out in our favor, too. They could've very easily have had an easy touchdown point after conversion.

[Bub 20]

Keep in mind that as far as the AFC West goes a tie would have hurt Denver much more than it would have hurt us. They were 1-2 in the West going into that game.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Keep in mind that as far as the AFC West goes a tie would have hurt Denver much more than it would have hurt us. They were 1-2 in the West going into that game.

Thankfully for us, a loss hurts them more than a tie, but that's in hindsight and we are not playing for second place.

[jetlord 10,209]

Keep in mind that as far as the AFC West goes a tie would have hurt Denver much more than it would have hurt us. They were 1-2 in the West going into that game.

That was my point in the OP.  Since then, I heard some "expert" on the radio say DEN had an 8-9% chance to make the FG and if missed, KC had a 55% chance to move the ball within FG range.  If that's true, then it was a bad gamble, but one need to take into account the damage a tie would do to Denver.  1-2-1 in the division with a couple of games where they'll be the underdogs remaining made a win very important.  Kubiac probably went into the game with a mindset that they had to win and it carried over into overtime.

[KCSLC2008 606]

I am just happy we didn't have a time out to take where we tried to freeze the kicker on a stupid low chance kick. No practice! I know we wouldn't do that because we wanted to use it if we got the ball back (but who knows Reid?) but I would've really hated that. I'm also glad we did not jump offsides or have some other stupid penalty.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

That was my point in the OP. Since then, I heard some "expert" on the radio say DEN had an 8-9% chance to make the FG and if missed, KC had a 55% chance to move the ball within FG range. If that's true, then it was a bad gamble, but one need to take into account the damage a tie would do to Denver. 1-2-1 in the division with a couple of games where they'll be the underdogs remaining made a win very important. Kubiac probably went into the game with a mindset that they had to win and it carried over into overtime.

I believe on ESPN website it said that Denver had 50% chance of a tie had they punted, 46% chance of a tie if they went for it and 41% chance of a tie if he tried a FG. Something like that, bottom line the lowest percentage of winning or coming out with a tie was on trying a FG.

 

Bad call based on percentages.

[jetlord 10,209]

I believe on ESPN website it said that Denver had 50% chance of a tie had they punted, 46% chance of a tie if they went for it and 41% chance of a tie if he tried a FG. Something like that, bottom line the lowest percentage of winning or coming out with a tie was on trying a FG.

 

Bad call based on percentages.

It would seem their tie chances would be better than that if they punted.  Long way to go for the Chiefs to get within FG range in one minute.  I'll stick with the assumption that DEN needed a win and a tie wasn't much better than a loss.  Don't know how much Kubiak looked at the remaining schedule, but if he did, then he needed the win.  If that's the case, then the decision was between going for it on fourth down or trying for the FG.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Bunch of odds: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/Barnwellx161128/untangling-many-late-decisions-broncos-chiefs-game-nfl

[KCSLC2008 606]

I'm glad we didn't go for two after Hill's rushing TD because I think we would have failed; I'm glad Fowler scored because we weren't going to score a TD with 33 seconds and no TDs; I'm glad the Broncos didn't go for two after Fowler's score because I think they'd have gotten it - better chances than the 62-yard FG attempt; I'm glad Hill didn't catch the ball cleanly; I'm glad Harris didn't do what he normally does (drops; I'm glad they went for the kick because I thought they'd fail (yes, even pessimistic for lucky horse face; I'm glad the team didn't turn the ball over after the missed kick; I'm glad Santos made all his kicks, including Doinking the Donks.

 

It is safe to say I was very thankful this Thanksgiving weekend.

[eraser 722]

I was hoping they would attempt a kick, and shocked they did not go for it. In that area, the odds are better to go for it. Their kicker can kick the ball that far, but in game situations, that kind of kick is usually low enough to block.

 

On the muffed coverage by Gaines, he had been beaten bad earlier, and had no idea where the ball was. Gaines was hurt most by the loss of Nelson. Parker had to move to corner, and Sorensen started at S. If you watch the game, Gaines had no one to help over the top. They pretty much left him on an island against a player who is quicker, and better. Gaines is the fastest CB on the team. He ran a 4.35 40. Sanders is quicker. So, for those who bagged on Gaines, he was bad, but it was expected. In hindsight, the muff by Gaines, who if he turned his head may have intercepted that pass, turned out to be a blessing. At the time, it did not seem so. Alex Smith had not been able to move the team. However, Smith clicked the switch, and became instinctive.

 

The Chiefs should be winning games with the talent they have. Their offense has been under-performing. They have been bad, really bad. The adage it's better to be lucky than to be good, only works on a singular event. In time, luck balances itself out, and talent rules in the long term. This team frustrates me. By all accounts, Alex Smith should be having one of his better seasons. He is as effective as he was when they had no talent at WR. So, what is the problem? As mentioned before, he thinks to much, and plays not to lose. When there is nothing to lose, Alex plays on other people's money. He plays without the regard of what might happen bad.

 

Alex Smith is the issue with this team. If Smith can play with abandon, and throw caution to the wind, they might catch fire. When Maclin returns to the team, he will be their 2nd best receiver. Conley is a steady, possession receiver, who by the way, runs very fast. As I predicted at the beginning of the season, Tyreek Hill will be the best WR by the end of the season. He currently is the best WR on the team. True, he does not have the entire playbook, but he doesn't need the entire playbook. Hill makes plays. Hill has a burst, and can get open. Although he did not break a reception for a long gain, he has that ability on every play. Alex Smith gained over 500 yards rushing last year. If he had that many yards rushing this year, the Chiefs would have exactly the same rushing yards per game. He had his best year rushing last season. At his age, it is predictable that Smith should decide not to run as much. The rule changes or emphasis makes it better for him not to run. Yet, he has to start to play less mechanically for it to work.

 

Back to the call, the call was neither right or wrong. It would have been considered right if their kicker made the kick. Denver had more to lose than the Chiefs, even if they tied. A tie for the Broncos puts them down two against Oakland. However, even with all the injuries on the team, the Chiefs seem to be playing a three legged race in a 100 yard dash. They have yet to cut it lose. If they got their offense churning, there would not have been a call to make a 62 yard kick. The Chiefs should have won by two scores.

[jetlord 10,209]

Hill has gotten separation on a couple of fly patterns but the ball was under thrown once and over thrown the other.  But some of his other plays have made him the top target with Maclin out.  Recall the videos of TC when Hill made a few spectacular catches in traffic?  He has a lot more than speed.  Smith will be better when Maclin comes back if Maclin is 100%, but Smith has to be trusting Hill a lot right now.  I'd like to see Conley get a few more targets.

[KCSLC2008 606]

Hill has gotten separation on a couple of fly patterns but the ball was under thrown once and over thrown the other. But some of his other plays have made him the top target with Maclin out. Recall the videos of TC when Hill made a few spectacular catches in traffic? He has a lot more than speed. Smith will be better when Maclin comes back if Maclin is 100%, but Smith has to be trusting Hill a lot right now. I'd like to see Conley get a few more targets.

Talking about Conley, I have been impressed on how professional he has been. I don't know if he is trying to impress Reid or something. They showed him after the two-point conversion and he seemed really excited and then after the made field-goal, he went and shook hands with Andy Reid.

 

That might not sound like much, but when a player who's not getting many touches but is talented, doesn't look all mopey, I take that as a positive. He catches the ball really well and when Smith misses him, his body language is good. He doesn't seem to be the one to have bad body language and then have a drop.

[DieHard 2,061]

A tie is a loss. Punting was not an option. 4th and 10 is tough to get. He made the only call he could. I would have tried it as well. Nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[KCSLC2008 606]

A tie is a loss. Punting was not an option. 4th and 10 is tough to get. He made the only call he could. I would have tried it as well. Nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I would pass it at least 7 yards and hope for a first down from YAC. A non-conversion would push us back field goal wise. A conversion would move toward my FG.

 

Some people say he couldn't go for it because it would give us the ball so close to our field-goal range. But that is assuming they pass and the ball is in complete. Complete the pass, burn some clock, and get as close to a first down as possible.

 

In my mind, that would mean the most likely scenario would be a tie if I failed to convert due to field position and defense and the best would be a win if I converted. A lot of people talk about how not converting would equal a win for the Chiefs, but if you push back the Chiefs and burn some clock, that might not be.

[eraser 722]

Talking about Conley, I have been impressed on how professional he has been. I don't know if he is trying to impress Reid or something. They showed him after the two-point conversion and he seemed really excited and then after the made field-goal, he went and shook hands with Andy Reid.

 

That might not sound like much, but when a player who's not getting many touches but is talented, doesn't look all mopey, I take that as a positive. He catches the ball really well and when Smith misses him, his body language is good. He doesn't seem to be the one to have bad body language and then have a drop.

Conley is smart, and seems to have very good character. I hope he succeeds with the Chiefs. He presents himself, and the team well.

[jetlord 10,209]

I would pass it at least 7 yards and hope for a first down from YAC. A non-conversion would push us back field goal wise. A conversion would move toward my FG.

 

Some people say he couldn't go for it because it would give us the ball so close to our field-goal range. But that is assuming they pass and the ball is in complete. Complete the pass, burn some clock, and get as close to a first down as possible.

 

In my mind, that would mean the most likely scenario would be a tie if I failed to convert due to field position and defense and the best would be a win if I converted. A lot of people talk about how not converting would equal a win for the Chiefs, but if you push back the Chiefs and burn some clock, that might not be.

All true, the better odds might have been to pass for the first down.  Running wouldn't have burned clock because the clock stops on a turnover on downs.  I'm still sticking with the idea that a tie was still a loss for the Donks so they had to take the chance for a win.

[DieHard 2,061]

Fair points. You could also lob it up deep and if it's PInor complete you win, if it's picked who cares. It was a tough spot to be in.

[Calichief 3,016]

Conley is smart, and seems to have very good character. I hope he succeeds with the Chiefs. He presents himself, and the team well.

He has tremendous hands. He isn't being used right ar all.

[DefensiveMan 758]

He has tremendous hands. He isn't being used right ar all.

With Maclin coming back that should open up Conley's game.

[Calichief 3,016]

With Maclin coming back that should open up Conley's game.

What bothers me is, the few deep shots that are taken, go to al Wilson mostly. Conley has the size, speed, and hands. That's where they should take shots.

[jetlord 10,209]

What bothers me is, the few deep shots that are taken, go to al Wilson mostly. Conley has the size, speed, and hands. That's where they should take shots.

Agree.  Maybe it's because Wilson has replaced Maclin and is getting the same routes.

[eraser 722]

What bothers me is, the few deep shots that are taken, go to al Wilson mostly. Conley has the size, speed, and hands. That's where they should take shots.

Conley is fast, but not sudden. His quickness markers at the NFL combine were low, compared to other receivers He has straight line speed in the 40, but his 10, and shuttle were mediocre.

 

Conley has worked on perfecting route running. This is the biggest reason for his improvement. I do agree with the notion that Maclin's return will open up more opportunities for Conley.

 

The trifecta of Conley, Maclin, and Hill may be as good as any out there. Hill's 22.77 mph top end speed was the fastest time officially recorded at an NFL game. On that list of runners with fast top end speed is Jeremy Maclin. A radar gun had Maclin at 22 mph. The fastest human, Usain Bolt, has hit 28 mph on a radar gun. Conley has tremendous top end speed too. The thing that makes Hill difficult to cover is his strength, speed, and quickness. Prior to this injury plagued year, Maclin was heralded to have some of the best hands in the NFL. Hill, by the way, has 80 % receptions to targets. That number is huge.